Individuals and Environment: A Psychosocial Approach to Workspace [Reprint 2010 ed.] 9783110806397, 9783110135770

Citation preview

de Gruyter Studies in Organization 78 Fischer: Individuals and Environment

de Gruyter Studies in Organization Organizational Theory and Research This de Gruyter Series aims at publishing theoretical and methodological studies of organizations as well as research findings, which yield insight in and knowledge about organizations. The whole spectrum of perspectives will be considered: organizational analyses rooted in the sociological as well as the economic tradition, from a sociopsychological or a political science angle, mainstream as well as critical or ethnomethodological contributions. Equally, all kinds of organizations will be considered: firms, public agencies, non-profit institutions, voluntary associations, inter-organizational networks, supra-national organizations etc. Emphasis is on publication of new contributions, or significant revisions of existing approaches. However, summaries or critical reflections on current thinking and research will also be considered. This series represents an effort to advance the social scientific study of organizations across national boundaries and academic disciplines. An Advisory Board consisting of representatives of a variety of perspectives and from different cultural areas is responsible for achieving this task. This series addresses organization researchers within and outside universities, but also practitioners who have an interest in grounding their work on recent social scientific knowledge and insights. Editor:

Prof. Dr. Alfred Kieser, Universität Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany Advisory Board: Prof. Anna Grandori, CRORA, Universitä Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milano, Italy Prof. Dr. Cornells Lammers, FSW Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands Prof. Dr. Marshall W. Meyer, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, U.S.A. Prof. Jean-Claude Thoenig, Universite de Paris I, Paris, France Prof. Mayer F. Zald, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.

Gustave-Nicolas Fischer

Individuals and Environment A Psychosocial Approach to Workspace Translated by Ruth Atkin-Etienne

w DE

G Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1997

Gustave-Nicolas Fischer, Professor of Social Psychology, Director of the Laboratoire de Psychologie du Travail et de l'Environnement, University of Metz, France Updated and revised translation of the French original Psychologie des espaces de travail, First edition, by Gustave-Nicolas Fischer. © Armand Colin Editeur, 1989 With 10 figures © Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Fischer, Gustave-Nicolas. [Psychologie des espaces de travail. English] Individuals and environment; a psychosocial approach to workspace / Gustave-Nicolas Fischer ; translated by Ruth Atkin-Etienne. p. cm. - (De Gruyter studies in organization ; 78) Translation of: Psychologie des espaces de travail. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-013577-9 (alk. paper). - ISBN 3-11-015504-4 (pbk. ; alk. paper) 1. Work environment - Psychological aspects. 2. Work environment - Social aspects. I. Title. II. Series. T59.77.F5513 1997 620.8-dc21 96-47257 CIP Die Deutsche Bibliothek - Cataloging-in-Publication Data Fischer, Gustave-Nicolas: Individuals and environment : a psychosocial approach to workspace / Gustave-Nicolas Fischer. Transl. by Ruth AtkinEtienne. - Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 1997 (De Gruyter studies in organization ; 78 : Organizational theory and research) ISBN3-ll-015504-4brosch. ISBN 3-11-013577-9 Gb. NE: GT

© Copyright 1997 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany. Typesetting: Converted by Knipp Medien und Kommunikation oHG. Dortmund. - Printing: Gerike GmbH, Berlin. - Binding: Mikolai GmbH, Berlin. - Cover Design: Johannes Rother, Berlin.

Preface

"When I pass by a factory gate, I see in my mind's eye an inscription above it which says 'You who enter here, leave your freedom at this point.'"'

What is it about the factory or the office which conjures up this image? The constraints of work? The character of the place? Or both? Indeed, why is there such an implicit distinction between Outside' and 'inside' the work-place buildingl 'Seen from outside, the building is intended to present an image of the firm's success and prosperity - for the benefit of passers by and for trading partners. Between the outside and the inside are buffer or transition zones - elegant for some, abrupt for others, carpeted for business visitors, concreted for employees. Inside, the employees find the world of constraints, where actions are designed by production engineering and movements are controlled by management. Of course, workers and employees actually enter the factory or office daily of their own volition, respecting a contract which they entered into 'freely' - giving time, knowledge and skills in exchange for rewards. These rewards are primarily in the form of money but also in more subtle forms of satisfaction. In the work contract, ground-rules are established, so that a kind of unstable balance is attained between maximized demands and minimized rewards. However, in parallel there is an interplay of positive and negative micro-initiatives on both sides - and the scene for this interplay is space. A consensus about the true nature of space is almost impossible to attain. For the employer, space is a line item in financial statements - corresponding to outlays only partially considered to be productive. For the industrial engineer, it is an minimally-obstructed enclosure with a smooth, hard floor upon which equipment can be functionally arranged and rearranged. For the mechanical engineer, it is an environment endowed with predictable characteristics of heat, light and sound. For the architect, space is not just a 'void'; it is given specific positive qualities by virtue of its shape and its surrounding 'envelope' of walls, floors, ceilings and openings, with colours and textures combined for a functional or emotive purpose. For the employees, space and its equipment provide an opportunity to break the contracted constraints of production work; space then becomes the support for often-unauthorized humanizing gestures - the flowering plant, the photo of a friend, the vacation poster ... since the employees cannot totally compartment their lives into a life-style Outside' and a behaviour pattern 'inside.' The entrance 1

Gerald Regan, then Minister of Labour, Government of Canada, opening a conference entitled "Design of Industrial Facilities and Improving Conditions at Work," Montreal, 1980.

VI

Preface

gate and its surrounding walls - the barrier - is not so totally 'impervious' as one is often lead to believe; individualism timidly percolates through. Space also has different time-related connotations; it is not the same before or after its creation - and the notion of what is, or may be, an effective building to work in, is fugitive at best. As Gerald Davis wrote: "Making buildings work is an extraordinarily complex task. Part of the complexity is due to the fact that so many people participate in planning and creating buildings. And after a building has been created, still other people, including the building occupants, have a role in making it work. Depending on their role and their prior training, they all have different objectives and expectations for what constitutes a building that works well."2

Before the building exists, that is to say, when the design team is working in collaboration with its client, the building is a set of imaginary spaces, budgeted for and combined into a workable whole in response to the stated features of the brief and the unspoken artistic and social concerns of the designers: from a state of initial flux, everything becomes gradually fixed in the working drawings and specifications, in preparation for the legal and financial realities of contracting for construction. Once the building is occupied, on the other hand, a subtle process of change immediately starts to take place, where the players - from management to employees - modify the building more or less visibly, more or less Officially,' to accommodate the realities of everyday life within it. New, purpose-designed, efficiently engineered buildings often offer little scope for personalization, whereas old, often ill-adapted buildings allow for a continuing accretion of 'nest-building' routines by all their occupants, often more than compensating for the inadequate physical conditions. Caricaturally, as Gogol wrote: "It used to be told that a counsellor, upon nomination to the post of director - of some peripheral service or other - immediately had a partition built to have a room of his own that he could pompously call his 'meeting room;' he placed on duty before the door two ushers in uniform with red collars and gold braid, and instructed them to open the door for visitors - even though there was only room enough in the famous meeting room for a small table and a chair."3

Unfortunately, the process of accommodation, where a physical environment advantageously allows for 'clandestine appropriation' (as Gustave-Nicolas Fischer calls it), is rarely included in designers' briefs, and is usually ignored in established schedules or 'budgets' of space requirements.

2

3

Davis, Gerald. "Standards for Overall Building Performance, and Information Technology." High-Technology workplaces. Ed. Pierre Goumain. New York, VanNostrand Reinhold. 1989. Gogol. Quoted by Renzo Zorzi. "Pourquoi la qualite du bureau?" Le bureau de demain. Eds. Colin Davidson and Mario Gagne. Montreal, Universite de Montreal, Faculte de 1'amenagement, 1983.

Preface

VII

In this context, Fischer's timely book brings out, by argument and by casehistory, the importance of the subtle processes of using space and of appropriating it. Neither the designer nor the manager can now claim ignorance of the high stakes involved; the world of business has to recognize that communications about the work-place can be two-directional, and that the employees' spatial experience and competence can contribute to creating successful working conditions, in both the short and the long terms. However, the worlds of business and production are undergoing rapid changes, the tempo of which is also rapidly changing. In such a perspective, all we can be sure about is that the factory and the office of tomorrow will function differently from today, since we can also be sure, like Arthur Clarke, that "the future isn't what it used to be." The work-place of tomorrow will be characterized by flexibility, a flexibility of work-flow and consequently a flexibility of work location. But flexibility to this extent is antithetical to the stability needed for appropriating and personalizing the work environment; the employees of tomorrow will need imagination to personalize change and the employers must replace today's feigned indifference by a broad-based understanding of the human consequences of the dynamics they have unleashed. The principles of the psychology of the work environment will serve as a guide through the new instabilities, as the designers, managers and employees face these new challenges. Meanwhile, miracles of ingenuity are deployed to tame the workplace and its environment; the sensitive observer can now respond to the Duke Orsini's rhetorical question: "Tu chi entri qua, pon' mi parte a parte et dimmi poi, se tante maraviglie sin fatte per inganno o per arte."4

Colin Davidson Professor of Architecture Formerly Dean Faculty of Environmental Design University of Montreal Montreal, December 1995

4

"You who enter here, take me aside and tell me then, whether so many marvels are made by intrigue or by design" - engraving above the entrance to the Duke Orsini's renaissance sculpture garden at Bomarzo, Italy.

Contents

Preface

V

Introduction

1

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

7

Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts

9

1 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 4 4.1 4.2 4.3

The Concept of Territory The Concept of Territory in Ethology Human Territories The Concept of Human Territory The Concept of Territoriality The Functions of Territoriality Personal Space Definitions Process Factors Functions Privacy Characteristics Functions Symbolic Space Sacred Space Cultural Space Historical Space

9 9 10 10 12 13 16 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 23 23 24 25

Chapter 2: The Psychosocial Processes of the Relation to Environment .

27

1 1.1 1.2 2 3 3.1 3.2 4

27 27 28 30 32 33 34 38

Environmental Cognition The Cognitive System Environmental Learning Environmental Perception Images of Space: Cognitive Maps Construction and Purpose of Cognitive Maps Principal Experiments Space Appropriation

X

Contents

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

41

Chapter 1: Functional Analysis

43

1 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3 1.4 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 3.1 3.2

43 43 44 46 46 47 48 49 49 50 52 53 53 55

The Components of Organizational Space Production Space Office Space The Closed Office The Landscape Office Transit Space Social Space The Operating Principles Partitioned Space Imposed Space Controlled space Influential Factors: Environment, Performance, and Satisfaction . Physical Environment, Job Performance, and Cognitive Processes Physical Environment and Job Satisfaction

Chapter 2: Symbolic Approach

59

1 2 3

60 62 64

Symbolic Figures in Architectural Space Architecture as Artifact Architecture and Work Culture

Chapter 3: Psychological Analysis

67

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

67 67 68 71 72 73 74 75 75 78

Work Territories Organizational Spatial Logic The Social Role of the Physical Environment Buffer Zones The Symbolism of Power Place and Spatial Status Case Study Functional Zone Personal Zone Communication Zone

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

81

Chapter 1: Territorial Behavior

83

1

83

Territories as They Are Experienced

Contents

XI

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3

Personal Space and Identity Personalization of Space Territoriality Participation in Design Hierarchy Status Markers Territory and Privatization Mechanisms of Privatization Types of Privacy Needs Perception of Privatization

89 90 92 92 93 94 95 96 96

Chapter 2: Perception of Workspace

99

1 2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 3

Research Orientations The Semantic Structure of Space Method Results and Discussion Global Results Results by Category Discussion Space Evaluation and Conflict

99 101 101 104 104 107 110 112

Chapter 3: Appropriation of Workspace

115

1 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4 5 5.1 5.2 5.3

115 117 117 117 118 118 119 122 124 127 127 130 130 132 134

The Concept of Appropriation Conditions under Which Appropriation is Expressed Environmental Criteria Psychological Criteria Ways in Which Appropriation is Expressed The Weight of "Disappropriation" The Value of Nesting The Creation of Personal Territory Mobility Communication Appropriation and Design Interpreting Uses of Space Place Attachment Clandestine Self-Management Constant Re-appropriation

XII

Contents

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

137

Chapter 1: Models

139

1 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 2 3 4 4.1 4.2 4.3

139 140 143 143 143 144 145 148 151 152 153

Architectural Functionalism Research on Architectural Determinism The Functional Principles of Architectural Conception Exterior Design Interior Design Workspace Ergonomics Environmental Competence Environmental Design as Social Intervention Spatial Self Planning The Architect as Facilitator Improvement of Working Conditions

Chapter 2: Experiments

155

1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2

155 159 159 161 164 167 167 167 168 169

Workspace Design Environmental Design and Working Conditions The Volvo Experience Redesigning Office Space Conception of New Workspace Environmental Design as Organizational Learning New Workspace Construction Mobilization of Human Resources and Emergence of the Project. The Characteristics of This Self-Managed Project Workspace Extension

Chapter 3: Outlook on the Future

173

1 2

173 175

Space, A Human Resource Space, Raw Material to Be Managed

Conclusion

179

Bibliography

181

Author Index

193

Introduction

The research on workspace that has developed over the past fifteen years illustrates the diversity of approaches to this subject: architecture, ergonomics, design, work sociology, social psychology, environmental psychology are among the large range of disciplines called in to further this research. The goal of this book is to study workspace from a psychosocial perspective; it re-examines and advances the investigations begun in our previous works (1992, 1996). We will, in particular, present a review of the principle North American research on the subject; a dozen or so research missions carried out over the past several years, mainly in Montreal, made this review possible. In North America, we were able to observe a different sensitivity to workspace than that observed in Europe. This is expressed, among other things, by a greater interest in the production of workspace as shown by the diversity of research and experimentation in this domain. It manifests itself in orientations concerned with the development of integrative conceptions that stress the qualitative aspects that come into play at the conception level of space. It seems to us that the question of workspace itself is often a part of the analyses and other investigations carried out by a majority of architects and designers and that this is less the case in France. In North America, the system is generally more fluid and, in consequence, better integrates aspects concerning work culture into the social structure as a whole. This work thus constitutes a psychosocial approach to workspace. It is organized around the major concepts developed by environmental psychology and puts forward a type of investigation based on analysis models furnished by research on workspace. This book does not address specialists and has no pretension of being exhaustive on the subject. Its aim is to put at the disposition of a general public of students and professionals a body of knowledge based on this psychosocial approach to workspace and to familiarize this same public with a new way of comprehending professional organization and experience. Space has long been a forgotten dimension of the social sciences. It took research into environmental psychology to bring its importance to light. Workspace is a unique type of social environment. It is often situated on the outskirts of urban areas and relegated to property of little real estate value. It rarely gets the attention that the importance of its function in the social structure would merit. It does, after all, represent a territory with its own style of occupation and its own organizational, material and symbolic characteristics.

2

Introduction

Any study of workspace will be based on a psychosocial analysis that takes all of the above factors into consideration. The emergence of this new preoccupation must first be situated with respect to the work humanities that have developed since the beginning of the industrial era. Historically the importance of the work environment became evident when the negative effects of scientific management began to be felt. The first works on this subject (Munsterberg, 1915) saw the problem from a double perspective: first, determine the ambient material conditions (lighting, noise, smoke, heat) that cause fatigue, absenteeism, and accidents; and then, improve worker performance by reducing the impact of these factors. This point of view considered environmental factors as factors of resistance or of bad performance to the extent that they did not contribute to the realization of the tasks to be done. Progressively studies left these factors to deal exclusively with the "human factor" considered as the key element in organizational functioning and efficiency. The experiment carried out in the Hawthorne factory (Mayo, 1933) showed the psychological aspects of professional situations, translated by the idea of "human relations" as systems that explain worker performance: performance depends on the individual's feelings and attitudes towards colleagues and superiors. Following Mayo's investigation, humanist theories illustrated these orientations: work organization can either be a source of satisfaction or of dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1971) depending on the various human motivations taken into account (Maslow, 1954). Organizational psychology places work analysis in the broader context of the study of social mechanisms and shows the importance of structure, power phenomena, communication, and inter-group relations in a company (Simon and March, 1971; McGregor, 1960; Crozier and Friedberg, 1977; Sainsaulieu, 1987; Mintzberg, 1986). Within this framework the socio-technical approach insists on the organic aspect of the social component of work, fitted onto its technical component so that an organization can function correctly. The human factor takes on an integrative value essential to work efficiency (Trist and Bamforth, 1951). The environmental dimensions of work, more or less forgotten with the attention given to other aspects, are again taken into account by studies in ergonomics axed mainly on the work station and on elements in the physical environment. They bring to light various types of constraints in terms of physical and mental work loads (Cazamian, 1974; Montmollin, 1967; Sperandio, 1984). The ergonomist thus offers a model that describes work as being a dynamic interaction between an individual and their environment, based on the analysis of complex work load characteristics. Parallel to this, and in a more general way, sociological analyses and real-life experience (Linhart, 1978) have paradoxically brought to light the structuring value of work, the meaning of personal aspirations, social belonging, and social identity. An individual searches for recoginition of their activity; they try to play a

Introduction

3

role and show it through the subtle creation of strategies that allow them to gain some control over their work by fixing rhythms for themselves, or deadlines they at least partially master. Thus the individual cannot be reduced to programmed mechanisms and coldly considered as a cog in a machine. It is on these historical and social elements that the general perspective adopted in this book is based. Our approach is, in a general way, situated in the framework of environmental psychology which sees space as an integrating concept for the analysis of social phenomena. It studies the relations between individuals and their environment, the role of space, and the multiple influences space has on human behavior. This is a theoretical orientation structured in a pluri-disciplinary perspective. We will thus define the physical environment and the objects it is composed of as a social structure. The configurations and characteristics of what we call the framework are in this sense considered as being socially produced elements: they are the result of the process through which the occupation and transformation of a territory take place. Space, then, vehicles not only material functions but also social values. This is why any space can be defined as a social form (Gestalt) of the reality that intervenes in a field of values (Lewin, 1951) and structures the cognition of this reality. Moreover space can be comprehended as a vector of social interactions for two reasons: first, any spatial organization structures communication more or less directly, more or less strongly, and, secondly, it is a social message about the group or society that occupies it, about its style of living and its values. Environmental psychology thus brings to light the importance of the social experience as it is lived in relations with different environments. These relations are not only linked to orientation and information, they are also emotional and imaginary. For example, the corridors or routes I use to get to my office are not just a practical system for getting from one place to another, they are spaces known to facilitate certain encounters and used to avoid others. Space thus becomes part of representations and behaviors. Individuals make space the object of various practices and interventions through a whole variety of adaptations and changes that we will define by the term "appropriation." This is a process that makes it possible to show that human behavior is not a passive system: it exerts physical and/or psychological control over space and affirms, in this way, an ascendancy that makes decisions and action possible. Appropriation thus includes forms of interaction that, based on occupation or a particular use of space, express self-affirmation with respect to environment. In this general framework, the psychosocial approach to workspace, as a new field of knowledge on organizations and work, is based, first of all, on the classical approaches that have outlined the psychosocial importance of the organizational environment. Weber (1971) had already noted that the physical environment did not only qualify production goals but also individual rank in the hierarchical structure. In

4

Introduction

the model proposed by Homans (1950), the physical environment is also considered as a factor that can contribute to the formation and development of a group: proximity and accessibility can favor interaction, facilitate the development of a feeling of belonging, and have an impact on individual and group performance. The psychosocial approach to workspace proposes a new reading of the interactions between human behavior and organizations. This type of approach is based on the fact that work structure is reflected in the distribution of space. It bases its view of an organizational system on the way space is structured and on how space is divided up and used by individuals, not only according to production imperatives but also with relation to behavior and value systems that transform space into a way of carrying out work and define the company as social territory. This field of research, pursued initially concerning the psychosociology of industrial space (Fischer, 1980), was an effort to understand a company through its style of occupying and assigning space. Our approach is now centered on the study of the various forms of interaction between workers and their work environment. We will try to show that workspace has value as psychological and social territory. Space informs us of the way workers accept, use, invest themselves in, or reject their work which is valorized as an anchoring point in which they try to recreate a fragment of their identity. The various forms of control exerted, such as appropriation, will make it possible to measure its implications. This type of analysis also tries to show that workspace is not simply mechanical space: it is human space because it is humanized as are all other environments: on the one hand, according to the cognitive and symbolic differentiation that is constantly acting on it and, on the other hand, in relation to behavior that integrates space as a "hidden dimension" (Hall, 1966) of their strategy with respect to the professional system. These theoretical elements make it possible to briefly situation our approach with reference to the recent orientations in North American research (Sundstrom and Sundstrom, 1986) that are developing around the evaluation of user reactions to different environmental variables (noise, temperature, lighting, privacy, etc.) and around the study of the impact of these variables on job satisfaction and performance, for example, when moving into a new workspace (post-occupancy evaluation). Moreover this research takes into consideration either the individual level or the group level or the organizational level of interactions between an individual and space: - at the individual level, ambient conditions, such as noise, temperature, color, lighting, and music have been studied, often with the aim of evaluating their effects on job satisfaction or on performance; - at the group level, several types of interactions such as interior design and social interaction, physical isolation and privacy, equipment arrangement and group discussion are analyzed;

Introduction

5

- at the organizational level, architecture and design are the aspects the most studied. The preoccupation that comes to light in this research is essentially centered on the analysis and the evaluation of the physical environment. It is based, first of all, on the idea that the physical environment can be studied and measured objectively and in a way that is independent of the users, as Canter and Kenny (1982) have shown. Secondly, it is based on an inventory of beliefs, current among technicians, engineers, and administrators, according to which the manner of describing and measuring space produces valid data and makes it possible to draw indisputable conclusions. Our approach differs from these orientations in its conception of space and in the psychosocial value given to space and also because of the role space plays as a socio-functional mediator in activity and interaction management in general, and in that of work in particular. The outline of our book follows four principal axes: First we will introduce the fundamental concepts of environmental psychology and show how different research studies, using the idea of territory or that of personal space or privacy, have perceived a style of human behavioral functioning. The study of relations between space and an individual make it possible to bring to light the role of different social phenomena in these interactions. We will draw attention to certain contributions of anthropology that show the importance of the symbolic dimension of space. Secondly, supported by these general principles, we will deal with different points of view on how workspace operates, by first presenting the functional criteria on which the organization of this space is based, and then showing the overlapping of rational and symbolic elements within this structure. A third axis will be centered on the psychosocial dynamics of the relation to workspace. We will show how space is psychologically and socially differentiated into subjective zones and territories of possession, belonging, or rejection. We will consider these psychological divisions and delimitation as processes of cognitive differentiation that are a fundamental element in the understanding of workspace. Fourthly we will emphasize practical elements by proposing that space be considered as a human resource in organizations. Thus supported by the analysis of existing models in the spatial design domain, we will present several experiments that allow us to grasp certain problems posed by the conception and design of workspace. We will show, finally, the conditions that must be met to manage space as a resource.

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

Over the past twenty years the psychosocial study of person-environment interactions has become a new area of analysis and research whose essential aspects will be introduced in the following pages. In social psychology the concept of environment emerged little by little based on conventional ethological or ecological definitions of the term. Lewin (1951) was one of the first to set down a model of social analysis of space as an essential factor in human behavior. He showed that an individual is part of a system where all behavior depends on the environment in which it expresses itself. He defines the concept of life space as the basis for person-environment interaction; he includes all the factors that determine an individual's behavior in a given situation. Lewin distinguishes two different levels in the concept of environment. At the first level environment is seen in its material, geometrical form and defined objectively. At the second level it is seen in its "psychological" form, that is such as it exists for an individual; in this case it is not only defined by its objective characteristics, but also by the qualitative properties linked to an individual's behavior in space. It is in this sense that proximity or remoteness, as non geometrical characteristics, can define an environment. Any environment can be understood through the study of the different relations that cross it or that co-exist and have an effect on each other. Space in this sense is defined by the values that structure it and form a topological field, that is to say, a psychological environment with non metric properties that determine individual behavior. In this field, the concept of "border zone" includes all the elements of the physical and social milieu that influence the person-environment relationship. Lewin was also the first to propose a theoretical approach that puts the accent on the interdependence of psychological events within a topological field. Based on Lewin's work, ecological psychology (Barker, 1968) conceived of space as being the objective, preperceptional context of behavior that forms a kind of mold into which activity is poured: real life settings. Seen from this angle each and every environment is a model of behavior because it gives rise to a system of interactions between the physical and social characteristics that interfere with the cultural features specific to any particular situation. In this perspective, environment is like a setting that seems to imply adopting such or such a behavior; it is like a system of stimulation that can produce, facilitate, or prevent any specific

8

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

behavior. It is thus an environment that is not taken into account as such but with relation to interactive components that give rise to a "behavior setting." Considered from this angle, a playground, a classroom, a movie theater, a church, or a coffee shop are environments that induce specific behaviors. In this case it is a framework for analysis that introduces, on the one hand, the idea of interdependence between environment and behavior, which shows that environment has a certain influence on behavior and, on the other hand, a type of adaptation that shows that the reaction to an environment does not only depend on physical characteristics but also on psychological and social stimulation. From these general considerations a theoretical framework can be drawn up and used to present the main concepts in this domain. Here, in the first part of our book, we will study specific conceptual elements elaborated by environmental psychology; we will then analyze the main interaction processes.

Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts This introduction to the fundamental concepts of environmental psychology gives a general outline of the subject in order to arrive at a clearer understanding of the contribution of environmental psychology to the analysis of workspace and to organizational functioning. We will discuss the concepts of territory, personal space, and privacy as well as the cultural and symbolic dimensions of the physical environment.

1 The Concept of Territory Ethology has brought to light the importance of territory by showing us, in particular, that the fundamental need to have space and keep a certain distance from others underlies all animal behavior.

1.1 The Concept of Territory in Ethology The territorial behavior of animals in their natural habitat or in captivity has been extensively studied (von Uexkiill, 1956; Hediger, 1965; Tinbergen, 1958). The importance of this behavior has been brought into evidence by several findings. It has been established that an animal shows its presence by marking a territory; it marks its space and defends it by significant behavior. Territory is both a protective zone and a zone to defend. An animal uses its territorial knowledge both as a guide and to defend itself from intruders. Territory serves three essential functions: a survival function that allows the animal to find food sources, a defense function that allows it to protect itself, and an exploration function that allows knowledge of and familiarization with its environment. In short, territory is one of the principal factors in animal survival. This has been clearly shown by Hediger (1965) who extensively studied the wild animal in captivity. He noted that a restriction of space created disorientation, a loss of capabilities, and sometimes a state of confusion that could be so severe that the animal refused to breed, refused to eat and sometimes even died. Several studies have brought out other functions of territory by showing the importance of population density on animal behavior. The best known study on this subject was done by Calhoun (1962) whose aim was to show the influence of density on the behavior of a population of rats. At the outset of the experiment 48 rats were placed in four cages. Then, with no transition, the number of rats

10

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

per cage was increased to 80. The experiment showed that this increase in density caused various disorders, such as disturbed nest construction, as well as deviant forms of mating and social organization. Moreover certain males showed increasing aggressiveness and did not respect submission rites signaling the end of combats; females showed indifference to their offspring and about 75 per cent of the infant rats died. Other studies (Christian, Flyger and Davis, 1961) confirmed these findings by showing that increased density was a factor of behavior disturbance due predominantly to the impossibility of reference to a past, protective use of territory in the study of animal behavior but, in this context, its function is essentially biological.

1.2 Human Territories 1.2.1 The Concept of Human Territory The concept of territory used in ethology has been extrapolated and applied to human behavior. It is clearly referred to by some scholars (Ardrey, 1966; Lorenz, 1970) who transpose their observation of animals to the human scale. They consider that humans possess a territorial instinct. They also interpret the functioning of a group or of a society by looking first at the territorial basis which allows it to express its instincts and which comprises one form of its equilibrium. Lastly, they show a direct relation between animal behavior and human behavior by underscoring the link between aggressiveness and territory, this last being a guaranty of survival. Environmental psychology has used the concept of territory in a completely different analytical context: human territories are studied in their social settings and interpreted psychologically and culturally. This concept can only be used analogically and metaphorically in human social situations where it becomes so complex that it can not be reduced to a biological function. Thus certain scholars refer to this concept to define an environmental approach to social reality (Stea, 1978; Brower, 1965; Pastalan, 1970). Others, such as Altman (1975) use territory first and foremost to designate a place or geographical area occupied by a person or by a group who use it in a certain way as their own property permitting exchange, work, or retreat. Territory in this sense generally means the appropriation or the personalization of a space using markers such as, for example, a nameplate on the main door and property signs. Territory can also be defined by the existence of interpersonal barriers. As a consequence any intrusion provokes various defensive reactions: aggressiveness, warnings, discomfort, anxiety, etc.. For Altman and Chemers (1980) territoriality is fundamentally a mechanism that regulates the boundary between ourselves and others and implies the personalization and the demarcation of a space. Personalization and possession thus con-

Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts

11

trol social interaction and assure the satisfaction of different needs, both social and physical. When territory boundaries are violated, defense manifestations may occur. Altman and Chemers propose an explanatory system that emphasizes, moreover, the differences in territorial behavior between animals and humans. Firstly, individuals participate in activities in several different places, which shows the social value of all spatial interaction. Contrary to animals, humans do not just appropriate territory but also values and objects. As a consequence human territorial behavior is highly socialized to the measure that it is not directly and exclusively dependent on the physical characteristics of a space. Human behavior integrates the perception, use, and protection of certain zones or objects and does not necessarily mean legal possession of space but simply an appropriation, not property in the legal sense, materialized by some type of marking. According to the authors, creation of territory happens for three principal reasons: to react to the materialized or implicit presence of others, to respond to environmental characteristics, and to satisfy emotional needs. Territoriality thus seems to fulfill an essential function, that of appropriating space. This phenomenon is closely related to communication and to the regulation of privacy. Based on the above, Altman (1975) distinguishes three types of territories: primary territory, secondary territory, and public territory. - Primary territory is a space that is occupied in a fairly stable way and clearly identified as being the occupant's. It is controlled by fairly long-term occupants; housing or a personal office are examples of this. This type of territory has a privacy function; it can be personalized and any intrusion is experienced as a violation. In such territory access control is highly valorized; the identity of the owner is evident and invasion or intrusion may be felt as an aggression (Altman, 1975). Primary territories thus give essential support to the process of interpersonal boundary regulation and to personal identity. - Secondary territory is less rich in meaning. It is semi-public or semi-private and governed by more or less clearly defined rules concerning its access and use. Its occupants have relative control over this space (bars, clubs, etc.), but it is not always the same persons that occupy it at any one time. This type of territory is thus appropriated in a more ambiguous manner than primary territory. - Public territory is space accessible to everyone and is occupied temporarily (park benches, phone booths, etc.). Behavior is mostly regulated by institutions, standards and customs. These territories offer relatively little support to interpersonal boundary control; for example, if the setting offers little privacy, different ways of establishing distance from others can be used.

12

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

1.2.2 The Concept of Territoriality As occupied and appropriated space, territory is defined by certain specific behaviors called territorial behaviors. Territoriality is thus a type of individual or group behavior whose goal is to appropriate and occupy a space or a geographical area. It is based on defense against intrusion (Holahan, 1982). The notion of human territoriality is the subject of a systematic study by Malmberg (1980), who reviewed work in the area in an effort to define and delimit the concept. Generally speaking, territoriality is a behavior phenomenon that manifests itself through marking or boundary creation, to show control and ownership of a space. Malmberg shows that the interpretation of human territoriality was first based on the concept of defense. According to Malmberg, human territoriality is expressed through the more or less exclusive emotional ties that individuals or groups have with different spaces and that give rise, in particular, to boundaries and markings. To be even more precise, he insists that territory and geographical area are not synonymous. The relations that a group has with its territory are of an ecological order; those that exist between the members of a group and the territory, as an element of a larger geographical entity, are of a social order. Territoriality and sociality overlap but are part of different systems of relations. For Soja (1978), however, territoriality expresses itself through territorial behavior that organizes the relation to space into influence zones or into clearly delimited spaces. As for Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin (1976), they see human territoriality as the exercise of control over a defined part of an environment and consider this process to be a means toward a more fundamental goal. Several authors have, moreover, suggested different classifications for human territoriality. For Stea (1978), human territoriality can be considered essentially from a geographical angle and has three basic forms: - the territorial entity, which is considered as personal space controlled directly by an individual: for example, an office or car; - the territorial group, a system including both spaces and persons frequently encountered; - the territorial complex, composed of the territorial group and also of the territorial entities belonging to the individuals who make up the group. Brower (1965) defines territoriality by taking into consideration two factors: occupation and dominance. These two factors manifest themselves within the system of interactions. He distinguishes four types of space occupancy depending on a certain number of criteria:

Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts

13

- room occupancy which reflects the identity of its occupant and his or her values and aspirations; - group occupancy, which is shown mainly by social control of the space; - general occupancy, shown by explicit but neutral markings which have a tendency to be standardized; - "free" occupancy, as in natural parks, where signs give information rather than exercising control over the environment. Lyman and Scott (1967) distinguish four types of territory based on the freedom of access or on the degree of freedom of behavior tolerated. - public territory, where there is free access but behavior is controlled; - group territory, where access is controlled but inside of which there is more liberty of behavior; - social territory, such as a club, where control over access and over behavior are relatively strict; - body territory, the most controlled zone, that directly reflects personal space and its value as a private and intimate domain. These different approaches to human territoriality have progressively given form to this concept of human territoriality by taking into consideration its underlying human and social characteristics. They have brought to light evidence of territorial behavior, not only as a means of dominance, but also as a means of communication with others. Territoriality thus emerges as the foundation of interactions that manifest themselves through specific behaviors.

1.2.3 The Functions of Territoriality Studies on territoriality have brought into evidence various characteristic functions that explain the use and control of space and define its importance. In particular, they have, in many ways, shown its value as mediator in social interactions. Territorial dominance The person who occupies and controls a space has a tendency to adopt behavior showing territorial dominance. That is to say, they exercise influence over their own territory, are more at ease when moving outside of that territory and occupy more attractive spaces than someone who does not have this attitude (Sundstrom and Sundstrom, 1986). The role of territorial dominance is to direct and regulate social interaction and can vary depending on privacy needs (Altman, 1975). On this basis territory demarcates an ascendancy zone with specific controls: building a house increases the desire to want to keep it; the restaurant table we are seated at is felt to be our own property. The result is that, depending on the situation, we react more or less strongly when this territory is invaded. On private proper-

14

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

ty control is, in principle, absolute as it can be occupied and personalized as the occupant wishes. In other terms, territory can create a more or less strongly developed feeling of dominance depending on whether private or public space is concerned. Within the scope of research on student dormitory housing (Martindale, 1971), pairs of students were asked to discuss what would happen if a criminal entered one of their rooms. The findings showed that the student who was in his or her own room during the discussion used more persuasive arguments in the debate no matter what his or her personal opinions on the subject were. Territorial dominance has also been advanced to explain the frequency with which home teams win in sports events. It would seem that in football and baseball and especially in basketball, home teams feel more sure of themselves and win more frequently than visiting teams. The home team feels that the basketball court, football field or baseball field belongs to their territory; the team is at home, it is familiar with the court or field. Being able to count on the local fans reinforces this feeling of proprietorship. If we take into consideration larger public territories where the possibilities of control are weaker, because these environments belong in principal to everybody, we can nevertheless note that regular users of such a space have a tendency to think of it as their own even if this territorial dominance is temporary. An example of this is a group that arrives early in a park and appropriates a table by putting its picnic and other belongings on it, thus signaling that it has reserved the space. Territorial markers Another use of territories is to demarcate a space by creating boundaries using various markers. These markers announce a presence; they are evidence of the "owner" who occupies the space thus demarcated. They are also symbols of social interaction and set up separations between the "owner" and others. Different artifacts can be used as markers; leaving personal objects is one way of showing occupancy of a space but the clearest marker of occupancy is the presence of a person. Other artifacts, such as fences or signs, are also used; but, as Hensley (1982) pointed out, everyone marks personal territory in their own way and doing so reveals a part of their identity. Markers, however, do not all have the same force; studies have shown that those associated with the occupant seem more effective in preventing intrusion or invasion than less personal markers (Altman, 1975). It also seems that the length of occupancy is in direct relation with the degree of complexity of the markers. Lastly, neighbors sometimes play a role in the defense of a territory in the owner's absence. Other studies have revealed the importance of marking on life styles. Edney (1976) noted that people living in houses surrounded by barriers (fences, hedges, walls, etc.) had lived in their houses longer than people whose property had less clearly defined limits. It is important to temper a direct correlation of this type

Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts

15

by taking into consideration other variables such as a stable job and a satisfactory family life; but one can nevertheless call attention to the psychological importance of boundaries when explaining attachment to space. Interpersonal distance The function of territory in public places has been especially brought to light through the study of the value of interpersonal distance. Sommer's (1969) analyses of student behavior in libraries revealed that most of those who entered sat down at unoccupied tables (64 per cent) and that those who sat down at tables that were already occupied habitually chose the chair farthest from the other occupants. The choice of a seat was thus conditioned by the value of the distance the students could put between themselves and others. Another aspect of the territorial function in public places seems to be linked to the length of occupancy. An experiment carried out during a student on-campus picnic shows this clearly (Sommer, 1966). One of the experimenters would go up to people who had been seated for variable lengths of time and say "Excuse me, you're sitting in my place." The findings indicate that subjects who had been seated for only a few seconds excused themselves and left, whereas those who had been seated for a longer period of time did not give up their seat. This tends to show that in a public place marking is a privileged way of designating personal possession of an environment. An experiment done in a much frequented study hall looked into the dissuasive use of different types of markers placed on different chairs (no marker, a newspaper, a book and notebook, a coat) (Sommer, 1969). The findings showed that the chairs not marked were all occupied within twenty minutes whereas personal markers were effective dissuasive signals for those looking for a place to sit. However, another study, carried out during a break in a three-hour class, examined what happened when someone else took another student's seat; in this case only 27 per cent of the displaced students asked for their seat back (Haber, 1980). Those who defended their rights with the most insistence were those who seats were located near the center of the classroom. Lastly, the function of a territory is linked to the social status of an individual, especially within an organization. Physical environment can thus indicate a person's position or rank in an organization, but, and at the same time, use of this environment in turn reaffirms the dominance hierarchy because it is based on individual status. (When we study organizational space we will deal with this characteristic more in depth). Territoriality thus serves multiple purposes. In everyday life it can facilitate the organization and management of activities in different spaces and can develop the use of mental maps by guiding behavior with respect to space. In a group or organization territorial behavior expresses itself according to the status or rank of the individuals. Sharing the same territory allows its occupants to acquire com-

16

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

mon knowledge and experience, to develop mutual confidence and group cohesiveness. Control of territory gives a person the opportunity to express their identity and differentiate themselves from others. These different aspects of territoriality show how control of and attachment to a space are means that individuals use to regulate interaction with others. Territoriality is an element of social relationship.

2 Personal Space Everyday experience teaches us that we have a sort of psychological bubble around us; we see this in our relations with others in the distance we try to maintain between ourselves and others. This indicates the existence of a protective "psychological wall" which is usually invisible. For years social science research has been interested in this phenomenon, defined by the concept of personal space. Personal space is a zone surrounding the individual and whose purpose varies according to psychological and cultural factors. It cannot be penetrated by others without provoking characteristic reactions.

2.1 Definitions The concept of personal space is based on the idea that the place of the body in an environment doesn't stop at skin level; it can expand or retract within a psychological-corporal zone that posts boundaries and defines a range of action. Personal space is seen as an emotional and social zone that translates body movements into a kinesthetic sphere. This zone has been described by different authors as a bubble (Hall, 1966), a shell (Moles and Rohmer, 1977), a buffer zone (Horowitz, Duff and Stratton, 1974), or simply as personal space (Sommer, 1969). Hall (1966) explains personal space by using an image in which each individual is seen to live inside a bubble where they are in some ways confined and where all body action takes place. Moles and Rohmer (1977) takes as their starting point two contradictory conceptions of the environment: space centered on the self, defined as a subjective zone, and objective space, defined in terms of dimensions. Starting with the subjective space that develops around the self, he sees an individual as the center of a world wrapped in multiple layers. These layers are "shells that, using deep social psychology, represent the vectors of his or her appropriation of space." Each of us builds these shells that not only represent our relation to the environment but also determine a process of differentiation between ourselves and the world. Moles and Rohmer take as an example clothing which is seen as an extension of

Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts

17

the body and as the first shell, he lists in order: one's body movements , apartment, neighborhood, city, region, nation and, lastly, the whole world, "the travel and exploration zone, the more or less known unknown, the reservoir of novelty." This analysis is a typology of real space looked at as the primeval residue of the dialectic of expansion and withdrawal of the self. Personal space has also been described as a buffer zone (Horowitz, Duff and Stratton, 1974) that protects a person from real or perceived threats and intrusions. Perception of, or even fear of, an intrusion into personal space can be felt as a violation of privacy and cause a variety of reactions that increase interpersonal distance and decrease interaction. This conceptualization has led to a definition of personal space as a body buffer zone, that is to say, a buffer zone around the body of 12 to 20 inches, that illustrates the protective role of personal space. Personal space is thus a protective zone around a person, that cannot be penetrated by others (Holahan, 1982) and that serves as a mechanism regulating social interaction (Altman, 1975). Let us point out, however, that personal space is not territory: it is an invisible, mobile zone surrounding an individual, whereas territory is a visible, stable area.

2.2 Process Personal space does not only refer to the material space around the body, the sphere containing movements or physical activities, it also refers to distances maintained in social interactions. Hall (1966) studied different ways of using space depending on distance and defined four general categories of distances: intimate, personal, social, and public, each one varying with the personality of the subjects and the social-cultural aspects of the environment. - intimate distance is that zone within which any presence is immediately felt and may be considered as an aggression; - personal distance corresponds to the size of the bubble around a person, and manifests itself especially in friendly relationships and in private conversation; - social distance refers to the interpersonal distance generally respected in everyday social relations; it depends on the interaction rites of a group or society; - public distance is that which is manifested on solemn occasions where a celebrity is present or in meetings between heads of state. These four distances or emotional zones demarcate personal space; each one is associated with a certain number of activities, relations and emotions that are specific to different cultures and thus show the meaning of social interactions. Distance is an important regulation mechanism where personal space is concerned and resembles non verbal mechanisms. Other research has shown distance to be part of the process of defending personal space. Sommer (1966) studied distance as a strategy for avoiding others and

18

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

also as a system of defense. He asked students in libraries where they would sit if they wanted to isolate themselves and where they would sit to have a table to themselves and keep others at a distance. He noted that students would sit at the end of a table, next to a wall, if they wanted to be the farthest possible from others. However, if they wanted a whole table to themselves, they preferably chose a center chair. In another experiment, Sommer (1962) studied distance as a factor in communication between two individuals. To do this he placed two sofas facing each other, varying the distance between the two, and invited two students to sit down to talk. Observing these different situations he made a distinction between those where the students sat down across from each other and those where they sat side by side. His findings show that those who simply wanted to talk preferred to sit facing each other rather than side by side. He calls this distance the minimal distance for a pleasant conversation.

2.3 Factors A certain number of studies have brought to light variables that affect the use of distance. Altman (1975) esteems that distances vary according to several factors: individual factors (age, social status, group), interpersonal factors (attraction, cohesion, liking, and disliking), situation factors (physical elements linked to the context) and cultural factors. The study of individual factors shows that the distance maintained between two persons is less in man-woman pairs than in womanwoman pairs, and that the distance maintained between two women is less than that maintained between two men. Other studies show that personal space patterns are learned models that are reinforced by socialization (Evans and Howard, 1973). Elsewhere, it has been noted that senior citizens see differences in personal distance as public distance, because what they see no longer corresponds to their own code of closer personal distance. De Long (1970) used this finding to explain certain incompatibilities between senior citizens and the health care personnel in institutions. Interpersonal factors bring out the importance of position in the use of distance. The distance maintained in a face to face position is greater than in oblique or lateral positions (Pederson, 1970). A correlation between the distance maintained and eye contact has also been noted: the more eye contact, the greater the distance maintained (Argyle and Dean, 1965). These different elements are themselves influenced by the situation in which an individual finds themselves: there is a significant difference between a situation where a person approaches someone else and a situation where he or she is approached. The amount of initiative needed to act in any given situation governs the dimension of the distance maintained. Cultural factors are perhaps the most important factors in the use of distance. We will study these factors in detail further on, but, as an example, less us take

Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts

19

Hall's (1966) research that established that, generally, interpersonal distance in Latin and Arab countries is less than in Anglo-Saxon countries. These variations in distance are culturally determined.

2.4 Functions Personal space serves several psychosocial functions. Defense system First of all personal space constitutes a defense system. In situations where people are crowded together (subways, elevators), it has been observed that avoidance and withdrawal behavior is manifested by avoidance of eye contact, crossed arms, body stiffness or by an occupation such as reading, that allows mental withdrawal from the surrounding environment. The idea of a barrier or shell well illustrates this function. Altman (1975) sees personal space as dynamic, in the sense that it can an expand as well as contract. Personal space also exerts control on the surrounding world. In a now classic experiment involving the observation of subjects seated at a table in a university library, Sommer (1969) shows that when the investigator gets too close, seventy percent of the subjects leave their seat within thirty minutes. Privacy regulation A second function of personal space is the regulation of privacy. As shown by Altman (1975), this mechanism comes into play in various ways as soon as an individual finds themselves in an unsatisfactory situation of interaction with another person. In this type of situation an individual may first of all adapt the environment to their own needs by modifying semi-fixed elements; they may also negotiate the use of the space with the other users; lastly they may adjust social relations by moving to another space. By regulating privacy, personal space displays a social value acknowledged by others and recognized as a means of withdrawing from the immediate environment. Cultural diversity Finally, as we have pointed out, personal space expresses cultural diversity. Each culture expresses and signifies the value it attributes to personal space by giving priority to specific mechanisms. Hall (1966) relates that in Japan, for example, people speak softly to avoid contact; an English person face to face with a French person will generally draw back and this is felt by the French person to denote coldness and distance. Elsewhere, such as in Arab cultures, we note the absence of any possibility for a family member to physically isolate themselves from the rest of the family. There are thus cultural models that provide a whole inventory

20

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

of social standards that help both to preserve privacy and to interact with others; these models evolve with the privacy and social relation standards of any given society. For example, French people build fences or walls around their property whereas Americans don't. This difference does not mean that one defends their property more than the other but that their models of relation to the environment are not the same. Thus in France the cultural model governing sociability in one's home is based on explicit markings that limit accessibility. One of the main uses of personal space is thus the regulation of interactions with the social environment. By putting up boundaries between oneself and others it defines personal space as one of the elements affirming personal identity. The fact that it expresses itself differently in different cultures shows that it is learned, that is to say that it refers to socialization models that are of a cultural order. Take, for example, behavior on a beach where the use of personal space not only depends on the individual but also on behavior standards concerning nudity and space occupancy. Thus the Germans, as noted by Smith (1983), have a tendency to define a larger personal space than the French and follow customary rules dividing beach space into several distinct zones: a zone for people with dogs, one for families with children, another for nudists, etc. The study of personal space thus allows us to bring to light its psychosocial nature and its function of preserving privacy in various situations.

3 Privacy The term privacy defines, in general, exchange with others using various artifices such as barriers or boundaries. Privacy is a psychological phenomenon that emphasizes the link between territorial behavior and personal space through the value placed on retreat and on the possibility of limiting our availability to others.

3.1 Characteristics The concept of privacy has, in particular, been defined as a way of managing the communication of information about oneself in a given environment (Westin, 1967). Westin has identified four principal characteristics of privacy. - Solitude is a situation in which the individual is isolated away from others; it implies physical isolation. In theory solitude allows personal reflection, selfevaluation and emotional relaxation. - Intimacy is a situation that applies to a couple or a small group that is also physically isolated from the outside world. Intimacy permits protected communication within a social unit, such as unrestricted expression of emotions.

Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts

21

- Anonymity is a situation in which the individual has no identity for others; he or she can thus neither be identified or supervised. - Withdrawal is a situation in which there are psychological barriers to communication. These different dimensions are especially manifest in spaces defined as "private" such as homes, offices, clubs, etc.. The occupants of these spaces can control boundaries and access by acting on certain of the attributes: doors can be opened or closed. These indices can be mainly symbolic and still cause others to adopt attitudes that reflect respect of social standards. Research on the office environment has established a correlation between a feeling of privacy and the existence of physical barriers such as walls, screens , etc. (Sundstrom, Herbert and Brown, 1982). Employees were asked to evaluate the degree of privacy their workspace offered; the experimenters noted the type of delimitation of each personal workspace. These findings show that the feeling of privacy was stronger if the workspace had either floor to ceiling walls or screens and/or doors that could be opened or closed. Given this data, it is not surprising to note that this feeling of privacy was higher for executives than for their employees, because their status entitled them to a more dependable protective envelope. A study carried out in university housing (Vinsel, Brown, Altman and Foss, 1980) shows that students who dropped their studies had not been able to preserve enough private space. They closed their doors less often than others, seldom isolated themselves and didn't seem to try to arrange their rooms to create a feeling of privacy. According to Altman (1975), the concept of privacy is essential to explain the relationship between behavior and environment. He identified three fundamental factors: - control and regulation of social interaction (an interpersonal function); - development of roles and interaction strategies (self/other interface function) - expression of identity and protection of personal image (an individual function). Thus, as we have seen, privacy can be defined in terms of the regulation of interactions taking into account the resources of the physical environment.

3.2 Functions Privacy can be seen as a dynamic process drawing boundaries between a person or a group and others in order to control access (Altman, 1975); it can therefore be considered as a system whose function is to regulate interactions with others by controlling interpersonal boundaries and thus allowing the individual to achieve a specific level of privacy.

22

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

In this perspective Altman (1970) and Altman, Taylor and Wheeler (1971) speak of privatization as a use of the environment that implies freedom of choice. Privatization does not simply imply solitude or retreat but supposes the establishment of the "right distance" in any social interaction. This distance is that in which a balance is achieved between the amount of privatization obtained and the amount of privatization desired. The amount of privatization obtained reflects the level of exchange which in turn depends on the rate of interaction with the exterior world. The privatization desired corresponds to the ideal level of interaction at any given moment. The optimum degree of privatization exists when the level desired and the level obtained correspond. When the degree of privatization obtained is lower that that desired, there is more interaction than the individual would like; as a consequence he or she feels intruded upon. Privatization therefore helps an individual or group to minimize undesired intrusions by putting up psychological barriers following a certain number of criteria: no outside control or inspection rights, freedom of action, autonomy, and self affirmation. It is in private space that this process can most freely manifest itself. According to Altman (1975), privatization also explains the process of crowding which is the result of too high a level of social interaction (a loss of privacy). Too much interaction is perceived as crowding and too little as isolation (Wohlwill, 1974); this varies depending on the number of constraints that the environment places on movement and personal control. Taking such promiscuity into account helps us to understand why feeling crowded can incite someone to judge their environment negatively, to reinforce their control of their activities in order to lessen the pressures that crowding exerts, or to try to get out of a situation they perceive as disagreeable (Schmidt and Keating, 1979). O'Brien and Pembroke's (1982) study finds, however, that in professional environments there is only a weak negative relation between perceived crowding and job satisfaction; the relation between these two variables depends also on the existence of other constraints. Privatization is thus not an end in itself but rather the means of achieving goals felt as essential to maintaining psychic equilibrium. Pastalan (1970) describes privacy as having three main functions. The first aims at insuring personal autonomy, at protecting one's individuality and at avoiding manipulation by others. It is a system of personal evaluation that helps the formation of identity, because if the individual does not achieve the level of privacy desired, he or she may develop a negative image of themselves. According to Westin (1967), this dimension corresponds to an individual's feelings of integrity and independence. The second function is based in emotional outlet; faced with the tensions of social life, retreat zones help psychic and physical release; an individual can vent his emotions freely, express his or her feelings of tenderness, anger or confusion. It is here that architecture can play the role of a protective screen behind which individuals can have the feeling of being themselves and can set their social masks aside (Hall, 1963).

Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts

23

Lastly, the goal of the third function is to facilitate assimilation of daily events and help an individual to disengage themselves from these events. Privacy in this case is a marker and allows self evaluation, synthesis of information and decision making. Privacy is also an element of social regulation between being open to the world and retreating into one's private sphere. The physical environment can help us to find privacy, but privacy also depends on our own vision of space (Sundstrom, 1975).

4 Symbolic Space The anthropological approach to space has brought to light one of its essential but often neglected dimensions: its symbolic value. Hall (1966) clearly demonstrated this value, and, before him, philosophers, ethnologists and sociologists had underlined the importance of this dimension through their observations of the overlapping of space configuration and social mechanisms. Creating space is thus an integral part of any given social structure and this space imposes itself on its members through the values it manifests or through the values attributed to it. This is its symbolic dimension expressed in different forms: sacred space, cultural space and historical space.

4.1 Sacred Space Research done by Eliade (1979) enables us to describe a first dimension of symbolic space which is the sacred value of space. According to Eliade, the experience of space is organized around a fundamental opposition between occupied space, which is sacred space and unoccupied territory which is chaos. Indeed, each time that people structure a territory, it is consecrated because this structuring repeats the work of gods. Space is thus part of a vision of the world that develops because of a sacred link and gives space its mythical value as being the center of the world. For Eliade (1979), it is a place that has an existential quality for humans and is at the foundation of their experience. Sacred space is a kind of founding principal that organizes human society; it manifests itself as a space set aside; walls and barriers materialize its separation from its surroundings: "The barrier, wall or circle of stones surrounding a sacred space are among the most ancient architectonic structures known to delimit sanctuaries" (Eliade, 1979). But, walls do not only mark separation, they are also a defense against their chaotic surroundings; as a consequence this space must be protected against constantly threatening disorder: "Barriers must prevent invasion by demons and dead souls more than human attack" (Eliade, 1965).

24

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

One of the fundamental consequences of this mythical function of space is that humankind would have to try to get in touch with, to become intimate with this world center. This is done through initiation rites that reveal the importance of the threshold: "The threshold is at the same time the boundary, the frontier which distinguishes and opposes two worlds and the paradoxical space where these worlds communicate, where the passage from the profane world to the sacred world is possible" (Eliade, 1965). We note that the presence of entries in our homes and of reception areas in workspaces is a residue of this ancient structure that seems important enough to be decoded as such at the level of behavior: hesitant movements, change of rhythm, rigid behavior. We can therefore understand that once the threshold is crossed, we find ourselves in an environment separated from its surroundings and qualitatively different. Sacred space thus refers to a vision of a non homogeneous world that contains rupture points. It is these rupture points that designate sacred space as a space that gives meaning to human behavior, as within this space activity takes on mythical value: in this space humankind can reproduce in its own way the work of gods, which is the principle of creation.

4.2 Cultural Space Whereas sacred space refers to a transcendent presence, cultural space is linked to group or social values; it is considered to produce meaning which expresses itself in social usage. Any space is thus a symbol: it designates and it represents. At the same time it transcribes the outlines of a social system and supports the social link that structures a group. Any society is the projection into space of its own values. Two classic examples that illustrate this dimension are: the description of the village of Kejara (Levi-Strauss, 1955) and the analysis of the Kabyle house (Bourdieu, 1974). Levi-Strauss (1955) analyzed the structure of the Amazonian village, Kejara, belonging to the Bororo tribe. This village is oriented along two axes: a East-West axis, parallel to the river and a North-South axis. These axes divide the village into two groups which determine relations, name transmission, marriages and residence standards, all elements that structure the social system. The organization of space is much more than and different from a simple description of how it functions: it is the foundation, the very framework of social relations. Consequently we understand the complex overlapping of physical arrangement and social structure where space supports and designates the functioning of a group. This circular disposition is of such importance for social life that its disappearance would annihilate the vital tissue of the group. And this is what happened when missionaries, who came to convert the inhabitants, understood that the best way to do this was to uproot them from their village and transplant them into another where the houses were all built in parallel rows. Levi-Strauss explains the consequences of this process: "Disoriented with regard to the cardinal points, deprived of a disposition

Chapter 1: Fundamental Concepts

25

that gave meaning to their knowledge, the natives rapidly lose their sense of traditions as though their social and religious system were too complex to function without the design made obvious by the disposition of the village.... We can thus understand why, by changing the traditional disposition of villages, missionaries destroy everything" (Levi-Strauss, 1955). Indeed, the transfer of the Bororo to an unknown environment coincided with such a loss of stabilization that they abandoned their traditions, gave up their conception of the world, and surrendered to a conversion directly created by the rupture of these ties. These observations show the force of the relationships existing between a space and a society: this connection guarantees the society's identity as it roots its social system in spatial forms that individuals give meaning to. The description of the Kabyle house (Bourdieu, 1974) shows another type of connection between physical and social structure in the private sphere. The Kabyle house has two levels. The lower level is reserved for the animal-like and baser part of human activities; this is the "dark and nocturnal" part of the house. It is different from the upper level which is strictly human; this is the "luminous, noble, human space reserved for two true cultural activities, cooking and weaving." The separation of space in this type of house symbolizes, by the spatial delegation of activities, the value and the distribution of social roles. The structuring of these roles valorizes outside space where men have a social rank. On the other hand, interior space is a universe of social exclusion, women's workspace, destined to stay dark and hidden. "One understands that all the biological activities, eating, sleeping, reproducing, are banished from the true cultural universe and relegated to the sanctuary of privacy and secrets of nature, the house, a world of women destined to manage nature and excluded from public life" (Bourdieu, 1974). Thus, the organization of domestic space can be seen as the inventory of the social relations that intervene in a society's way of being and functioning.

4.3 Historical Space Relation to space also has a historical dimension: "It is difficult to know what space would be for a truly isolated man who was not, or had never been, part of any society" (Halbwachs, 1950). Space in this sense is the historically determined trace left by social structures. For any society there exists therefore a time in space that must be taken into account to be able to grasp the emergence of, the mark left by, and the disappearance of forms which at a given moment defined social reality. The medieval street is a good example (Leguay, 1984); it is the scene of a variety of professional activities. Each trade is practiced along the roadside and announces its presence through its work. The street is thus a complex environment; at the same time it is "a passageway, a workshop, an office" (Milley, 1965). But the function of these streets produces visual identification or cognitive recognition, it gives specific color and contrast to the urban tissue and this reflects the

26

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

know-how, the grouping of trades, the social contacts and religious callings of the society. Today, the street no longer plays all these roles and has transformed itself into an environment for traffic. The basic behavior of the individual in the street is often equivalent to their behavior behind the steering wheel of a car and can be described in terms of movement strategy or in terms of control of a portion of the street. This last phenomenon has been illustrated by the analysis of the territorial behavior of the caretaker of a building. Installed on the sidewalk, he or she marks their territory in front of the building. Their chair on the sidewalk affirms at the same time their life style and their personal territory. They are thus in a strategic position to watch the street, to make sure the sidewalk is kept clean, and to talk with the occupants of the building as they come and go. This appropriation of part of the street thus represents control over certain activities that happen there. Using these findings, Pfeffer (1982) brought to light several indications concerning use of the street. In the street individuals look for individualized spaces either where they can pause when going from one place to another or where they can watch what is going on around them. They also have a tendency to recycle spaces, as well as the objects that are there; that is to say, they use these spaces and objects to fulfill their own needs and not necessarily in the way intended. For example they move benches or sit on the edge of flower beds; they transform elements of space by inventing uses that are more or less tolerated. Lastly, they interact with others, or are inclined to, when they feel in security in the street. This comparison between the function of the street in the Middle Ages and in our modern cities reveals the historical importance of space and shows that each era has its own way of creating space and of living with the physical environment.

Chapter 2: The Psychosocial Processes of the Relation to Environment In chapter one we gave an overview of the main conceptual elements of environmental psychology. In this chapter we will describe different processes which structure the relationship between an individual and the physical environment. Environmental cognition, space perception, mental map development and space appropriation are among the most important of these processes.

1 Environmental Cognition Environmental psychology brings to light our constant need for spatial information. Environmental cognition is a combination of perceptual, cognitive and emotional processes through which an individual gathers knowledge of their sociophysical environment (Stokols, 1978). It enables the individual to know their environment by capturing the environmental stimulation that is necessary for the development of cognitive systems: a specific instance of this is cognitive maps. This environmental cognition is a convincing approximation of "reality" which depends in part on each person's past experience, beliefs, values and ideas (Ward and Rüssel, 1981). It is based on two synchronized elements: a cognitive system and a learning process.

1.1 The Cognitive System The cognitive system is a structure whose essential function is to direct exploratory movements and activities in an environment in order to increase knowledge of the environment and of its different components, and to satisfy needs. This system has been defined as being the part of the perceptual cycle that is modified by experience and practically only concerned with what is perceived (Neisser, 1976). It integrates information provided by the senses and evolves according to this information. Both the pattern of action and the pattern for action, it is the central cognitive structure that guides behavior. The cognitive system can take different forms. It may, first of all, be the plan of a physical place or of a geographical environment and correspond with the cognitive map (Neisser, 1976). It may also embody the signs and symbols implied by physical shapes and define a veritable architectural semiotics (Ellis, 1982). An environment and its components carry meaning. They make a variety of poten-

28

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

tial actions possible, furnish clues to the past and to the immediate future, are part of a larger context and have an identity that transcends their physical properties (Neisser, 1976). Lastly, the cognitive system may take into account qualities attributed to environment; in this case the meaning an environment has for an individual is described on the basis of a cognitive and emotional element which seems to influence environmental behavior (Ward and Rüssel, 1981). The cognitive aspect includes sensory, spatial, informative and social data; the emotional aspect includes emotions associated with pleasure, with stimulation and with the feeling of dominance that the environment provides (Rüssel and Pratt, 1980; Ward and Rüssel, 1981). A study carried out in student housing brought to light several components of comfort based on these two aspects: personalization, freedom of choice or action, spaciousness and warmth (Pineau, 1982). Personalizing a space provides a feeling of privacy and of comfort; personalizing translates a defensive reaction to anonymity and to the normalization of both the architecture and the interior design of a living space. Personalized space becomes a territory in which the occupant has a certain autonomy and feels both at home and secure. Freedom of choice or action is a component associated with the privacy of a place; it has to do with a feeling of calm, of silence and with the possibility of retreat. It also expresses a desire for protection from outside annoyances. Freedom of choice or action also means having a space to oneself where it is possible to be alone if desired. The space available to an individual can be personalized, used by each person in his or her own way for activities and for comfort. Warmth is the last component of comfort and seems to depend on physical factors (temperature and humidity) as well as on psychological factors (individual differences). Using the elements brought out by this study, it is nevertheless necessary to emphasize that characteristics attributed to such or such a place depend on the social group and on the context that produces them and that the importance attached to them is dependent on the social and cultural milieu of the scholar (Bernard and Gottesdiener, 1982).

1.2 Environmental Learning The environmental aspect has only progressively been added to our knowledge of learning mechanisms. Environment was long considered as a passive and inert background to learning rather than as an active participant in the process. We know, however, that to live in any given environment and to act on it, we have to first know the space by identifying objects, location, means of transport, distances involved, etc.. Environmental learning is thus an essential way of adapting to our

Chapter 2: The Psychosocial Processes of the Relation to Environment

29

environment; it governs social integration by learning the complex behaviors associated with different environments. Studies on environmental learning underline two important factors: exploration on one hand and symbolic value on the other. Exploration Exploration is the first form of environmental learning. When an individual comes into contact with new spatial stimuli he or she elaborates a response in relation to the environment they find themselves in. Helson (1964) has shown that it is by discovering the components of an environment that individuals acquire reliable knowledge about the environment as well as the possibility to describe it according to their subjective impressions. Exploration is thus one characteristic of adaptation to one's surroundings. As Piaget (1976) has shown "any learning entails behavior coordination centered on an environment to be explored, taken as a whole, with all its elements." Among the elements that determine this learning, markers stand out as being especially important. Each time that we find ourselves in a new city, for example, and we try to situate ourselves, we usually do this with respect to buildings or public places (churches, monuments or gardens) and, of course, we also refer to the sign systems (street names, signposts). Helson (1964) studied the exploration behavior of students during the eight first months of their stay in New York to show how their knowledge built itself up progressively by identifying new sites, using public transport, going from one place to another, etc., that is to say by actively intervening in a new context. Environmental learning is thus a phase of unbalance and uncertainty during which one creates a new code of interactions with space for oneself; this situation creates a tension which is a sort of test necessary to validate the creation of future satisfactory relations and familiarization with the environment. Symbolic value The symbolic value of space is the second form of environmental learning; an inventory of spatial situations is built up through experience and interpreted with respect to the cultural elements present in different contexts. One aspect of this symbolic value can be understood by studying children's drawings that illustrate the symbolic value of elements such as doors and windows, the number of entries, the existence or non-existence of surroundings that close or open to the outside world. All of these configurations show how the physical environment is a part of social learning and is interiorized through symbols. In reality, all environmental learning takes place in this way using a double mechanism. Firstly, it uses a cognitive mechanism that, employing various strategies, a deciphering system and different means of interaction, makes possible the use of, and familiarization with, the environment. Secondly, it uses an emotional mechanism that translates the environment's emotional and cultural aspects into

30

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

a code of social interaction that makes living in harmony with the environment possible.

2 Environmental Perception Perception is one aspect of the complex and dynamic relation between a person and their environment. Perception is a source of information closely related to adaptation mechanisms. Environmental perception is a specific process through which space is perceived and reconstructed mentally. According to Ittelson (1978), perceiving our environment is a subjective experience that allows us to situate our action. He explains this phenomenon by pointing out that, traditionally, the psychology of perception was mainly concerned with how objects are perceived, which implied a clear distinction between the self and the non-self. In the case of environmental perception, the subject is the center of their relation to environment. Their experience as an inhabitant, their motivations, and the roles they can play there mean that they perceive, not an object reduced to a set of physical properties but, indeed, a space they can explore, occupy, and appropriate (Bernard and Gottesdiener, 1982). Consequently, environment has properties or characteristics that an object cannot have (Ittelson, 1978). It encompasses and envelops an individual, and nothing and no-one can be situated or recognized without an environment. This encompassing characteristic of environment gives the individual the identity of an actor in different settings (Ittelson, 1978). To perceive the environment he or she must explore it. Environmental perception is thus more an exploratory process rather than the simple observation involved in perceiving an object. Consequently, moteric experience plays an important part in environmental perception; it is through action directed toward the environment and action in the environment that the subject receives a variety of sensory clues in the form of visual, auditory and tactile feedback. Moreover, environment is multimodal; to experience it in its totality one must use several sensory modes. One sense alone cannot provide all the clues necessary to its perception. Another characteristic of environment is the abundance of information available that can be acquired simultaneously. For this reason, an individual is exposed at the same time to central information and to secondary information. When he or she focuses their attention on one part of their environment they also perceive the surrounding environment (Ittelson, 1978). Through environmental perception an individual processes information by choosing between the different data received and by recognizing repetitions, inadequacies and contradictions.

Chapter 2: The Psychosocial Processes of the Relation to Environment

31

According to Davis and Szigeti (1982), an individual must constantly decide on the pertinence of environmental stimuli, reevaluate their priorities and adjust the management of their activities accordingly. The means available to control environmental information are the following: - putting information on hold and filtering stimuli that cause distraction; - introducing physical stimuli as reminders of activities (desk notes, lists of things to do, agendas); - blocking stimuli using environmental components (rearranging the setting, closing off areas, ...). Environmental perception usually implies action toward a goal. By exploring, selecting and classifying environmental information, an individual manages to forge a coherent view of a place (Ittelson, 1978). Significant messages that guide an individual's actions are present in every environment. These messages are an essential part of the content of environmental perception. Lastly, every environment is defined by its general climate. This characteristic, difficult to perceive and measure, is important however in environmental perception. The idea of climate seems to include several aspects: a social aspect (type of interaction), an esthetic aspect (the harmony of the space) and a systemic aspect (the relationships between different environmental components and events). Perception of environment varies according to several factors: individual factors, setting characteristics and social relations (Ittelson, 1978), and seems to operate at five interactive levels: basic emotions , orientation , categorization, organization, and manipulation. First of all environment has an impact on the basic emotions. This is probably a global emotional response to the climate aspects. This impact gives direction and tonality to ulterior behaviors in this environment (Ittelson, 1978). Mehrabian and Rüssel (1974) confirm this assertion and think that emotional response along with environment influences various behaviors. Orientation is based on the possibility of having a global vision and an initial representation of an environment; it guides exploration by developing a taxonomy that is used to analyze and understand the environment (Ittelson, 1978). As the environment becomes more explicit, the perceptual process facilitates systematic analysis of the complex relations that are characteristic of any given environment and it becomes more and more structured and intelligible. All throughout the gathering of information and the construction of environmental "reality," the individual plays an active role by exploring and manipulating their environment. But this perception of environment is not exempt of errors or biases. According to Craik (1973), culture, personality and past experience are determining factors in this process, in particular, sensibility to environment, its control, a person's mobility and his or her tendency to take risks. To sum up, the role of environmental perception is complex. It provides the information necessary for orientation in a specific environment. It also facilitates

32

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

behavior adaptation in foreign environments by developing knowledge of the milieu. And it aids interpersonal communication and regulation of social interaction by providing environmental clues to the correct distance to be maintained and about the status and identity of the occupants of a territory. Studies on environmental perception suggest that the relation to a place is organized by subjective experience which creates a topological field in which the individual is constantly maneuvering. We can thus affirm that perception is an interactive process that provides, at the same time, information (where am I?) and sensations (how beautiful!) concerning an environment. This dynamic interaction shows that the perceived elements of an environment cannot be reduced to their material aspects but include subjective dimensions depending upon one's experience of the environment. As a system of interactions, environmental perception proceeds according to several modes identified by Stokols (1978): an interpretive mode that concerns the cognition and built up aspect of the environment; an evaluative mode pertaining to the quality of an environment and which follows codes or criteria that can be more or less normative; and , lastly, an active-reactive mode that involves intervention in environment and taking into account environmental impact. Perception of space thus comes into play at several levels: cognitive, normative, and emotional. These levels are inseparable and form a privileged means of getting to know the environment around us.

3 Images of Space: Cognitive Maps As we have just seen, perception of space can not be reduced to a simple transfer of its physical properties; it is a mental construction that transforms these properties into images of space. This reveals the importance of cognitive maps that take into account the nature of spatial representations. The concept of mental maps was defined by Tolman (1948). He put hungry rats in a labyrinth and tried to discover how they went about finding the path that led to food. In a first experiment the rats had learned an itinerary that led them to the food; once they had mastered that task they were placed an a new labyrinth in which the starting point and the table remained of the same size and form. However the rats had to choose between 24 paths, 12 short and 12 long, none identical to the itinerary they had learned previously. The experiment showed that, faced with a large choice of itineraries, and not knowing which to follow, a majority of rats took the path oriented in the direction that food had been found in previously. Tolman concluded that the rats had constructed cognitive maps of the different labyrinths for themselves and adopted territorial behavior to find the spot where food was placed.

Chapter 2: The Psychosocial Processes of the Relation to Environment

33

3.1 Construction and Purpose of Cognitive Maps Ulterior research has taken up the concept of cognitive maps and applied it to human situations. These studies, based on a model of the psychological functioning of the individual, and not only on the physical qualities of an environment, see the cognitive map as a mental process (Downs and Stea, 1977). This process is a cognitive process through which individuals organize and understand the world around them. It includes learning, encoding, stocking, memorizing and decoding information about the relative position and features of an environment (Downs and Stea, 1973). The product of this process is the cognitive map, that is to say a mental picture of a place, produced by the organized representation that an individual constructs for themselves of any given environment. A cognitive map is thus a representation of the environment with which we interact and which forms the everyday context of our activities: school, house, store, street layout, etc. More precisely, this cognitive map is an internal representation of the spatial organization of the outside world at a given moment and such as an individual believes the world to be. It includes several psychological characteristics brought to light by Downs and Stea (1977). A cognitive map is first of all a process and not a characteristic of the individual. That is to say it is the product of the experience an individual gains from their interactions with the environment. In this sense, it is the fruit of environmental learning, a source of information that enables individuals to situate themselves, orient themselves and to pursue their goals. One of the roles of this map is precisely to construct frames of reference in which to stock information on the environment. The cognitive map also has a selective character. This process takes place in two stages: first, selection of the information to retain and memorize and, second, the decoding of this information following criteria that permits us to grasp its functional importance and its distinctive character, for example "How does one recognize buildings?". Thirdly, it is organizational in nature. Downs and Stea (1977) define the concept of organization as being an effort to give meaning to things. Thus our cognitive systems assume that the relation to a place organizes itself on the basis of meanings that in turn become significant. These three elements characterize the cognitive map as being a process of reconstruction that shows that the representation of space is not a state but a cognitive process that transcends the spatial information the space provides by reorganizing it into a mental representation. The construction of these maps implies, moreover, a series of operations that translate information from the environment into an organized representation of itself. This takes place in two, relatively formal, stages: the construction of the map, or encoding, and the reading of the map, or decoding. In reality this construction follows a certain number of rules which help us to decide what to do, in what order and how to assemble the whole. These

34

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

indications reduce the construction of a cognitive map to the formalization of four types of elements: - goal pursued (what do we want to represent?); - perspective (what point of view do we want to privilege?); - scale (what is the size of the representation compared to the size of the environment?); - symbolism (how can we represent the different elements on the map?). The cognitive map serves several essential functions: one, an adaptive resolution of problems associated with space; another, a symbolic function of communication; and third, a function that expresses personal identity. The first function concerns the possibility of spatial problem resolution; that is, getting to know a physical environment in order to situate and identify resources and persons. Cognitive maps indicate where to go and how to get there in order to accomplish such and such an activity or satisfy such and such a need. In this sense, the adaptation of a person to his or her environment depends on cognitive maps. The second function is that of elaborating environmental symbols that everyone agrees with and that are part of interpersonal communication. The legibility of an environment thus facilitates the emergence of clear symbols shared by all (Lynch, 1976). Through their reliability they go beyond the immediate recognition of an environment and give reference to its signification (Downs and Stea, 1977). The third function is the creation of a support for the development and expression of personal identity. Cognitive maps use memories, beliefs and emotions, because they are personalized and reflect a conception of the environment specific to each individual. The creation of cognitive maps is a complex process that makes the rendering of certain aspects of our pictures of space possible. It would thus be illusory to interpret or use them as simple reproductions of an environment. Such an attitude would imply that any material environment is a standard environment and has an objective reality. The appeal of the cognitive map doesn't reside in its degree of approximation with objective space but rather in the fact that this correspondence shows us how an individual qualifies space when passing from a large-scale environment to its representation.

3.2 Principal Experiments Lynch (1976) was the first to analyze the mental representations that inhabitants of three American cities (Los Angeles, Boston and Jersey City) had of their city. He considers that these mental pictures reveal the visual quality of a city which

Chapter 2: The Psychosocial Processes of the Relation to Environment

35

he calls its legibility. The qualities that facilitate this legibility are singularity (the degree of contrast and particularity); geometrical simplicity (both of the whole and of its parts); dominance (size, interest or intensity); signposts, visual horizon, presence of visual and kinesthetic clues, and names or symbols identifying different elements. For Lynch, mental representation of a city is produced both by immediate sensations and by memories of experience; the images of the environment are thus the result of constant interaction between the observer and their milieu. The analysis of these images is based, according to Lynch, on three essential components: - identity: the image necessitates the identification of an object, which in turns allows it to be differentiated from other objects and from its surrounding context; - structure: the image must integrate the spatial relation of the object to the observer and to other objects; - signification: the environment must have meaning, either in terms of emotion or in terms of information. On this basis the quality of a mental representation of an environment must meet the following criteria: it must be: -

large enough and real enough to constitute a field of action for the individual; clear and complete enough to be legible; reliable, that is, it must include unambiguous information; flexible, that is to say that it must adapt and leave each person free to pursue their investigation; - communicable. The mental image thus makes it possible to know how space is represented based on the "map we have in our heads" and reveals the importance that the physical properties of an environment have for us. Finally, the construction of a cognitive map of a city will take into account structural elements such as paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks. Each of these elements can be defined in the following manner:

- paths: these are the itineraries that give form to the route followed (streets, sidewalks, alleys, canals, railroad tracks); these are deciding factors that individuals look at closely when moving from one place to another; - edges: these mark the limits between two portions of a place: rivers, walls, routes, etc.; they can be perceived more or less as obstacles that separate one space from another; - districts: these are fairly large parts of the city which are recognized by their global characteristics; - nodes: these are both junctions and gathering spots and often play a strategic role;

36

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

- landmarks: these are easily identifiable spaces (buildings, monuments, squares, store windows, etc.). All of these elements thus define the structure of the mental image of a city based on an essential quality: "imagibility," the capability of an environment to produce a strong image of itself. Following Lynch's research, a certain number of other experiments on mental representations of urban spatial environment were carried out to try and define how individuals elaborated their representation by their use of and, in particular, by their movement through the environment. One already classic experiment was carried out by Pailhous (1970). He studied the way taxi drivers represented urban space. He formed two groups, one of novice and the other of experimented taxi drivers, and asked both to draw the routes they used. These drawings were used in experimental situations. This procedure made apparent two types of routes directly dependent on the representation the drivers had of the traffic and the streets: a main network characterized by its compactness and reliability and a secondary network of less familiar routes, used according to the driver's experience of the city and the mental representation of the city that they had developed. It can be noted that in the main network a reliable representation existed making different movement strategies possible such as avoiding heavily used intersections. On the other hand, to use the secondary network, the drivers had to rely much more on their immediate impression and their capability of finding a solution linked, for example, to the recognition of a building used as a landmark. Using this approach, Pailhous showed that the representation of the urban environment took place on the basis of two distinct types of routes that served as supports for the construction of the mental image. Other studies deal with the view inhabitants have of their city. Francescato and Mebane (1973) based their study on views of Rome and Milan; they noted that inhabitants born in one of the two cities had a more positive and more reliable representation of their city than others: they knew the city better and were more attached to it. People's view of Paris was studied by Milgram and Jodelet (1976) who found that a cognitive map is based on both individual experience and knowledge acquired through the press or other media. There is also, however, a collective representation that expresses itself through, for example, the common life style of a city's inhabitants. This survey also revealed another representation of the city based on a distinction between the city center and the surrounding area. Thus the heart of the city of Paris (Notre Dame cathedral, the Seine, He de la Cite), is considered to be the historical core of the city and produces representations that place value on origin and historical associations. The surrounding area gives rise to downgrading representations linked to various forms of residential and social segregation. Thus the social view of the north and east of Paris is one of a place that poor people and immigrants are relegated to.

Chapter 2: The Psychosocial Processes of the Relation to Environment

37

This study shows how the organization of urban space structures the perception of different zones or neighborhoods into an imaginary and symbolic system shared by the inhabitants. Various studies (Lee, 1970; Evans and Pezdek, 1980) have taken a close look at distance evaluation and shown how distances are underestimated or overestimated depending on an imaginary basis linked to the emotional value of the environment. Finally, experiments (Ittelson, 1978) have shown how individuals elaborate representations in accordance to their exploration of a space. Students at the University of New York were shown into a room where there were mobile panels and mirrors as well as sound elements. They were given fifteen minutes to explore the room before being questioned on what links they thought there were between the different elements. The findings showed two categories of answers, two different ways of describing the room: one based on the subjective experience and emotions of the individuals, the other on the material characteristics of the space. Students who had moved around little described the room using their impressions and did not see links between the different elements. On the other hand, those that had explored the space had a clear representation of it and had identified rules that explained its organization. These conclusions have been confirmed by other authors (Garling, Book and Lindberg, 1984) who show how acting on an environment gives rise to representations. They studied, for example, how individuals mentally plan their movements. This mental planning is one way of representing how space is used in everyday life. Two aspects of this are of special interest. Firstly, mental planning of movements reveals a link between representation and both physical and social environment. Secondly, the construction of mental images depends on certain characteristics of the environments concerned and on the relationship between the environments; the role of these images is to facilitate movement. This mental planning of movements is a sort of framework on which a mental representation of space can be constructed using an individual's familiarity with the different environments based on their knowledge of the environments' material and symbolic elements. These two essential aspects play an important role in how an individual acts on the space around them. The various elements concerning spatial representation brought to light by the studies mentioned above cannot be considered as passive. On the contrary, they are active and directed toward the transformation or reorganizing of an environment. They can be defined as a system of material or cognitive domination characterized by various forms of environmental action, the most evident being appropriation.

38

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

4 Space Appropriation Appropriation is one of the most complex phenomena having to do with a person's relation to the environment. Appropriation is a process that helps account for the various forms of dominance that we bring to bear on environment. This concept generally means the act of making something one's own, of claiming ownership of something, even if it does not legally belong to us. From a psychological point of view, appropriation is a mechanism that includes all of the forms and all of the types of activities that make possible an understanding or a taking possession of something. For environmental psychology, appropriation is the specific spatial behavior that exerts physical or cognitive dominance on a given territory. It is a process that depends on the situation in which it comes into play. Certain authors (Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin, 1976; Goffman, 1973; Sommer, 1969) have studied this mechanism in various situations. For Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin, appropriation manifests itself as physical or psychological authority, control, or power which can, for example, be leaving one's personal belongings on a table to reserve a place. This type of appropriation shows psychological control used as a sign intended for others, it is part of our relation with others. Moreover appropriation includes various means of action through which it structures the environment using signs, symbols or activities. This means that each individual or group has their own way of identifying the use of a space and of carrying out their activities in it. Appropriation always means the transformation of an object or an instrument or of an environment as such into a system of cognitive dominance manifested by a style of occupancy which gives an environment a new identity. Under these conditions the social and mental universe of an individual or of a group is reflected in the space they appropriate. Taking these indications into account, we can say that appropriation varies depending on the author, on the nature of the environment and on the available means. Likewise space takes on different meaning for different cultures. Individual status and ambition also determine a type of dominance and create a system of symbols that are themselves socially defined. The process at work in appropriation can thus translate the different types of individual and group needs and values present in any environment. It is for this reason that there are several levels of appropriation such as collective appropriation, group appropriation (for example, in an organization), and individual appropriation (especially in private space). The principal characteristics of appropriation can be drawn from the above elements. First of all, it is an interactive process that manifests itself as an adaptation mechanism. It presupposes that the relation to space is never neutral and that the individual or the group has the necessary resources to "recharge the environment" with signs and cultural values that have been excluded.

Chapter 2: The Psychosocial Processes of the Relation to Environment

39

Next, appropriation is a conflictive process in which a system of constraints is faced with unpredictable responses; in other terms, the conflictive nature of appropriation resides in the interdependence of the components at work in the physical environment and in the individuals or groups acting on it. In their hands appropriation becomes a game of remodeling the rigidity of any given environment as well as a process of creating variations. Thus appropriation should be considered as a process of changing, a process that most often expresses itself in a micropsychological mode because it does not imply any global transformation. In other words, appropriation means that there is no teleology of individual changes toward social change, but simply that there exists a teleology of behavior. This teleology reveals itself precisely when spatial activity and relationships are not finalized. From this angle appropriation can be seen as the capacity to produce auto-variation. In the banality of everyday life, the human being remains an incessant producer of variety, a status that allows them to reinvest situations. Different fragmented forms of space dislocate an individual; appropriation allows them in a certain way to become intact again. Appropriation is in this respect a residual structure of our relation with the surrounding environment. It materializes itself through different mechanisms, the most well known being the marking and construction of personal space. Marking is a process that puts a signature on a place: a garden fence is not only a material boundary but also, in interactions, a veritable barrier; it can only be crossed according to well defined social rules because it is part of an ownership system that is part of the psychological extension of the occupant beyond the space actually occupied. Sommer (1967) used the term marker to define all of the objects that are in some way considered part of the self and that are clues to appropriation. Goffman (1973) used this concept in analyzing social relations and divides markers into three types: central markers placed in the center of a territory to show it is claimed; boundary markers between two adjacent territories and signed markers, objects on the territory that bear the territory owner's personal mark. Marking systems in different, more or less constraining, situations are, as we will see later, elements that define the construction and the protection of personal space. Appropriation is thus not simply a physical arrangement, it also includes a dimension of owning or claiming personal space within functional territories that have a tendency to reject any attempt at appropriation. Goffman (1973) studied psychiatric institutions and underlined the difficulty of constructing personal space; but he showed that there are what he calls secondary adaptations that the individual uses to distance themselves from the role assigned to them by the institution. We will illustrate this with a phenomenological observation of a process of appropriation in an administration. The observation took place in a building where two different institutions share the same floor. The first institution deals with maladjusted children and the other is part of the Department of Education. The study of appropriation concerns one of the offices on this floor that is occupied one quarter of the time by a primary

40

Part One Environmental Psychology: Theoretical Framework

school teacher. It is furnished with several work tables, the paint on the walls is old and grayish and the teacher doesn't feel at ease in the room. Because of this feeling of discomfort the teacher decided one day to repaint the room. Normally, office decoration is the administration's prerogative and as a consequence "redoing" one's office is immediately seen as an unauthorized appropriation because the institution, without explicitly saying so, expects places to be occupied as they are. Any modification is felt not only to be a disturbance but also an aggression. However, as the rules were not clear enough, the teacher informed their neighbors and immediate superior of their decision. The reactions they met were on the whole encouraging but very skeptical: "What you want to do is fine but I'll be surprised if you're allowed to go through with it." The teacher painted the office during vacation time which allowed the project to be finished before the return of the other employees who only saw the finished results. Interviews on the subject of the office's transformation with the employees back from vacation provoked three types of reactions. The first type ("it's much nicer now") showed approval of the transformation and of the decision to make it. The second type ("it's like a living-room, almost luxurious") showed cognitive dissonance because the changes brought out a potential conflict between what they thought a workspace should be and what this workspace had become incorporating functions of satisfaction and even pleasure absent from their mental universe. The third type ("what's the world coming to!") indicated that the appropriation was associated with change that the organization could not accept but could no longer control. This initiative, strongly felt by the other employees as taking possession of space, caused a paradoxical situation. On one hand the occupant spent twice as much time as before in the space because the meetings that had been held elsewhere before the transformation were now held there: the teacher became host and was proud to receive "outsiders." On the other hand, it was noted that this office, that before its transformation had been a frequently used passageway by other employees, was no longer used by them: "Now that the office is re-papered, nobody comes to see me." Thus, this office had become, on one hand, a symbol of welcome for outside visitors and, on the other hand, a place that rejected employees working on the same floor. This example of appropriation thus shows how the relation to an environment was transformed by its redecoration and how it was reinterpreted by the social group according to the normative values that condition the use of a space through more or less explicit interdictions to change it without authorization. The concepts and processes that we have introduced here will serve as the theoretical basis for the following study of workspaces.

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

The introduction to the principal theoretical elements of environmental psychology in Part One shows the nature of the interactions between an individual and the different environments in which he or she lives. Part Two examines these interactions in a specific type of environment: workspace. First we will introduce the components and functional structure of work environments; then we will take a look at their symbolic aspects. These different levels bring face to face two conceptions that are more or less explicitly in conflict. One, based on the functional rationality of space, uses geometrical and quantitative criteria to define work according to the distribution of the volume of space allotted to specific tasks. An organization is divided into areas that, in a given site, may be distributed in a way that optimizes efficiency, using a social and spatial logic characterized, among other things, by enclosure, assignment, hierarchy and control. Work organization refers to a normative regulation of space. The other conception of space, based on what we might call the symbolic dimension of the environment, shows that organizational space is also a social construct that distributes a more or less valued asset, defines power play, and thus reveals, with reference to spatial problems, all that the functional conception of space forgets or ignores. Environmental psychology takes these different levels into consideration and shows how they define an approach to workspace.

Chapter 1: Functional Analysis Work becomes a part of space and treats the area it occupies as its own territory; its organization is a specific domain that differentiates itself from all other domains. The description of work places shows that an organizational structure, in one way or another, translates its various roles into specific areas.

1 The Components of Organizational Space In order to come to a better understanding of work organization, it is necessary to describe how the physical environment is organized around a production activity. Any company is divided into a certain number of organized spaces that are more or less related and delegated according to the nature of the work to be done there. Each company has its own style of occupying any given space. In this sense, any activity necessitates the use of a certain amount of space: space is one of the raw materials needed for work. It is thus possible to establish a topology of the spaces defined as a phenomenological constant and applied to various activities. Their functional, semantically delimited distribution represents not only a configuration, but also a work structure. This typology does not aim to be exhaustive or to give a detailed inventory of the technical elements that make up different spaces; it only shows how the distribution of workspace gives a certain specificity to work. Taking into account these different elements, we distinguish four principal types of workspaces: production space, office space, transit space, and social space.

1.1 Production Space Production space is, in a way, the matrix of industrial work. It is mainly formed by workshops; the organization of this area is marked by scientific management which we will take a closer look at further on (fig. 7). For the moment, let us note that the disposition of these spaces depends on a disconnection between the scale of the buildings and equipment and the human scale. Production space has become a technical object dealt with through architectonic logic independent from the people working there. Inside this global configuration, we find a certain number of functional microspaces that constitute work stations where the different production processes take

44

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

place. More than this global envelope, it is the work station that especially interests the environmental psychologist because of the different types of interaction the worker establishes with his or her immediate environment. The work station is the dense existential core in which a worker's acts and interactions take place; taken as a whole it represents the form of their social existence: this space is felt to be an important part of their life. The sciences concerned with work environment have progressively tried to find a functional design of workspace by introducing a certain number of improvements that help to decrease the worker's physical and mental workload. This approach does not take into account contributions from ergonomics; however we refer to these contributions to show the role they play in the analysis and comprehension of workspace. Environmental psychology thus sees the work station, implanted in production space, as a sphere of fundamental ascendancy. The sphere of immediate action (Moles and Rohmer, 1977) shows how important this space is; it is not only useful space but also personal space that the worker has some control over. Production space is thus central space, not only because of the importance of its constraint system but also because it places the individual in a functional and affective station which is the ecological setting for his or her work life.

1.2 Office Space Next to the workshops, office space is another more and more important activity pole of an organization; it includes all of the space reserved for administrative and data processing tasks. These two aspects determine the physiognomy of the office. From the industrial era on, offices have been conceived according to scientific work organization: the factory is the archetypal office (fig. 2). Offices are places that were progressively separated from production areas, but organized with the same will to define tasks as a standardized sequence of operations in a uniform environment. Although office space was marked by scientific management, it has nevertheless evolved through various successive configurations. Thus, at the beginning of the industrial era, office space because of the still small role it played continued to be part of the habitation where it occupied a corner of the workshop. Progressively it was dissociated from production space and became concentrated in specific areas that became veritable establishments physically separated from the industrial complexes. The design of office space became the subject of numerous studies concerning its conception as well as its impact. We will retain here the principal findings that make it possible to outline a topology of office space.

Chapter 1: Functional Analysis

Figure 1 A production workshop

45

46

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

Figure 2 The archetypal office: the factory

1.2.1 The Closed Office For a long time the dominant administrative model for the office environment was the enclosed office: one or several desks in a room surrounded by four walls and a door. This is a pattern inherited from intellectual work and the monastic cell is evidence of this. In enclosed office the walls and doors reflect an individual conception of activity that gives isolation and protection from intrusion and permits physical and psychological control of one's environment. Its limits are fixed elements that clearly define the territory of one or several individuals.

1.2.2 The Landscape Office Also called the open office, the landscape office is the fruit of the gradual breakdown of the traditional image of the office: everything that constitutes a physical barrier to communication, such as doors and walls are eliminated in order to create a transparent, fluid space where nothing can prevent the circulation of information. This conception evolved in two stages. First the open plan office appeared; this is a homogeneous space made up of compact rows where employees work with nothing to differentiate their workspace from that of their neighbors. Then, another concept, the landscape office imposed itself. The landscape office is a large open space but one in which office furnishings and green plants create an interior landscape that divides the space into functional zones. This conception of workspace, based on the elimination of physical obstacles, considered to be obstacles to communication, is put forward as permitting a more

Chapter 1: Functional Analysis

47

fluid circulation of information and thus as being more productive. However this conception of workspace has not given the expected results; the functional leveling and the topological precariousness have been felt more or less positively. By eliminating at the same time both spatial and social systems of reference, the landscape office obliges employees to control themselves all the time; in addition, the non differentiation of roles and of space gives no possibility of withdrawal into a private zone. In this context superficial behavior emerges: stiff smiles and circumspect behavior are the symptoms of interior tension, directly linked to the impossibility of arranging for a place to retreat to. The psychosocial roles of personal domain, delimitation and threshold have shown themselves to be of primordial importance (Steele and Jenks, 1977; BOSTI, 1981, Sundstrom and Sundstrom, 1986). In such spaces employees have the impression of being unprotected and develop escape behaviors to avoid this transparency. The disposition of landscape offices has paradoxically helped to bring to light the importance of a certain number of factors such as "sufficient" distance between people, position with regard to walls and openings, possibility for isolation, and group size which all influence social interaction and work habits. With the advent of new office technology, this environment underwent another transformation. New forms of work organization appeared that, in theory, were not based on the scientific management conception of rigid space delimitation and allotment. With electronic communication, it is no longer necessary, at least in theory, to have all an organization's personnel concentrated in one place; with adequate equipment, more and more activities could be done anywhere. New office technology also lends itself to a new conception of workspace; the new equipment takes up less space; the near disappearance of paper and archives leads to a different structure of space. New office technology has built a new psychological shell around the individual. Parallel to this, the new objects and equipment define a different interior landscape as well as a new topology of communication. Research on the new office environment (Alter, 1985) shows that how an individual manages this new space depends not only on the material elements present but also on his or her feeling of well-being with regard to their work.

1.3 Transit Space Transit areas are the spaces set aside for the movement of people and objects. Classifications of this type of space emphasize three distinct categories: space that gives access to and immediately surrounds the work station; space that is used to move around the interior of the company; and space that is in the trajectory of the entrances and exits used by employees. Transit space is conceived as an integral part of the work system and has been the subject of various investigations. Research into ergonomics has tried to de-

48

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

fine optimal distances from one point to another such as, for example, the distance from the locker room to the work station. Research into the physiological aspects of transit space has defined the energy cost of the principal employee movements. Transit space has also been studied with relation to security problems and, because of this, been regulated in various ways. It is seen and treated as a legal domain and no longer only as a technical domain. Environmental psychology looks at transit space with reference to the movement through it that different categories of personnel may make in the course of their work. Transit for strictly professional reasons is distinguished from transit used as an alibi which confers a different role to this type of environment. Indeed, the different types of workspace are designed to fix people in space; this allows them to be controlled. Moving around always creates a certain amount of disturbance and it is for this reason that transit space is the object of numerous rules and regulations that define its use: the length of time, for example, one can be in this space, absent from one's work station. Transit space is also considered from a legal angle, and not only a technical angle. This space is especially interesting to environmental psychologists because it gives rise to parallel behavior that allows individuals to escape sporadically from the functional partitioning their work keeps them in.

1.4 Social Space Under the term social space we can group different types of space that are not directly part of workspace, but are in a certain way either its anticipation or its continuation. We distinguish between conventional social space, the space that is adjacent to and more or less completes workspace (locker rooms, rest rooms, dining rooms, meeting rooms), and non-conventional social space that does not have a formal social character. Among conventional social spaces, transition spaces for workers, such as locker rooms, show their role as "intermediary areas" that serve as links between their time on and off work. These are zones in which the individual in a way anticipates the situation they are going to find themselves in. Wherever these spaces are present, they are ritual passageways: arriving at work, one changes from street clothes to work clothes; it is here that the metamorphosis from one identity to another takes place. It is also a space that prepares the transition between social spaces; it is, as it were, an airlock between two worlds, a symbolic passageway from one situation to another. Transition space also fulfills a cathartic role: it is here that working people shed both their physical and mental workload; it is here that they unwind and express themselves freely; it is here that they begin to feel free again. Even though this

Chapter 1: Functional Analysis

49

space is thought of as a functional disposition, we cannot ignore the fact that it is also symbolic space for the working people who use it. In addition to conventional social space there are other spaces defined as social because various kinds of social interchange take place there. We refer to these spaces as "social buffer space." This space is fundamentally characterized by the fact that it facilitates spontaneous regroupings, unofficial meetings, and is thus social space that may be more or less well tolerated. It is one of the humanizing aspects left aside by the functional conception of space. From this topological base we can derive the operating principles that govern this division of space.

2 The Operating Principles With the advent of the industrial society, the human environment has become a vast mechanized setting in which workspace is the symbol of the technical milieu (Friedman, 1964). In scientific management, the configuration and partitioning of workspace is based on a model of functional rationality that makes space instrumental by neutralizing or ignoring all the sensitive points of the environment. Any work organization imposes itself on space, molding space in a program of activity. In this model, the relation to space is, first of all, mechanic; which is to say that different activity zones are defined around the machine and it is within these zones that the person-environment relationship takes place. The implementation of this model implies a basic premise: any system that is conceived and organized functionally will surely be the most reliable and the most efficient system possible. The rationalization of space is based on a conception of efficiency; as these spaces are supposed to be rational, there is no room for questioning or unforeseen events. The instrumentalization of space acts as a guarantee that excludes any other point of view. This model is found both in work organization rules and in environmental design theories.

2.1 Partitioned Space The functional conception of workspace was based on a new organization of social territory: the clear separation between work and dwelling. Work has become a distinct domain. This fundamental rupture takes form through enclosure and interior partitioning. Enclosed space is one of the first factors that organize the work place, in as much as it implies a clear distinction between inside and outside. Traditionally en-

50

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

closed space was reserved for contemplation (churches, monasteries) or for atonement (prisons). In both cases, interior space is organized in a way that leaves the individual with no possibility of control over the outside. In churches, the stained glass windows are not there to look out of but to facilitate prayer and contemplation. In prison cells, windows are small, not only for security reasons but also so because the lack of light and isolation are constant reminders of punishment. Within work organization, enclosed space translates the same preoccupation: the closed environment is considered as a factor that keeps the workers from being distracted from their jobs; working hard and being cut off from the outside world go hand in hand. The principle that underlies enclosed space defines the work environment as a space that must be dissociated and preserved from the surrounding environment, thus it is set apart from other, social activities. The partitioning of places is directly linked to the specialization of work activities. Scientific management logic reproduces here the same segmentation it applies to time; tasks are rigidly distributed and the system is based on a principle of monofunctionality that limits each task to the space set aside for it. Moreover, this specialization of space not only confines individuals to repetitive, parceled tasks, but at the same time cuts them off from the process they are a part of. This is one of the most contradictory aspects of industrial work carried out in strictly defined spaces where only incomplete tasks are done. Work sociologists brought to light some time ago the feeling of incompletion and deep frustration caused by this type of work situation (Zeigarnik, 1907; Friedman, 1964). This division of space is inseparable from that of time. In addition it is characterized by a will to strip the environment of anything that seems useless. Workspace is dominated by uniformity. Research done by Mehrabian (1976) has shown that it is especially in situations where tedious work is done that a minimum of environmental variety is necessary; the worker-workspace relation depends on the possibility of choice that the work organization facilitates, tolerates or prevents. Division makes space into a malleable tool that rejects all its sensitive components; it is standardized so that it can be manipulated like an object.

2.2 Imposed Space Workspace is also conceived of as a principle for distributing individuals that consists not only in allotting them space designed for their work, but also space that indicates their level on the social scale. The organization of space functions somewhat as a coercive assignment system. Individuals and groups are in a way forced to occupy different spaces where certain activities, proper to those places, must be carried out. In a company this means that each person has a strictly designated place, a place he or she has not chosen and that does not necessarily suit them. This space assignment is written

Chapter 1: Functional Analysis

51

down in their work contract, fixing them in a specified environment; the contract specifies a worker's setting, their field of action, and the places that are more or less formally or psychologically forbidden areas. The system exercises control over the individual by assigning him or her a specified place. This aspect of the social structure guarantees that everything operates according to plan. Space becomes a separator of roles, tasks, and individuals; there is authorized space and unauthorized space. However, even though the environment becomes a vector of this assignment and distancing logic, it is at the same time experienced at another level where the strict division of space is modulated by the real ascendancy individuals operate on it. For example, the distribution of places brings to light the central or peripheral value attached to any one workspace assignment with regard to the social system formed by the work territory. Thus, the distribution of two rows of desks on each side of a corridor can create relations that give greater value to the central character of desks placed in the middle of the corridor and marginal value to those placed at its extremities. There are thus subtle forces at work between the assignment system and the topological field. Even more fundamentally, this assignment system reveals the pyramidal spatial structure that underlies status and role distribution in an organization; the scale of space allocation also describes hierarchical reality. Norms proposed by designers show the correlation between amount of space, equipment and importance of role. As a general rule, we can say that the space one occupies gets larger and more valorizing as one rises in rank. The allotment of an office according to this principle, for example, helps the hierarchical structure to function. And it is with relation to the place occupied in this pyramidal system that different categories of employees are authorized, for various reasons, to move about freely. One's assignment more or less determines the access one has to other spaces. Status habitually gives entry rights to other territories and defines the scope of the space over which one has some control. The social pyramid sketched by this distribution of space shows that all members of an establishment, workers, managers, senior executives, are distributed throughout this territory at different levels on the social scale. Barriers and distances are valorized as territorial elements that convey information about hierarchical status. Distance expresses itself, for example, when the worker, promoted foreperson, eats apart, at a distance. This can also be seen when the technician, promoted manager, moves from the workshop to an office, or when, in a large number of cases, a promotion is accompanied by a change of work site. Social distance is manifested by physical distance but also by interior decoration that announces a change in climate: "At the head office everything is nicer, we behave differently there, talk softly, and are more careful of how we act." Indications of the hierarchical structure are thus found inscribed in the different spaces that make up an organization.

52

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

2.3 Controlled space Space fulfills a role of control in two distinct manners. First of all, the spatial disposition of work is organized around the visibility of the workers. On this point, the conception of workspace curiously resembles panoptic space even if it does not explicitly use the panoptic system as a model. This system is the model of prison architecture and is based on the following configuration: a circular building with a tower in the center; the building is divided into cells and the tower has large windows from which a guard can see what is going on in each cell. Apanopticum is thus an architectural system conceived of as a system of supervision. Workspace organization adapts this principle of control. We have seen how work station assignment organizes space and roles making control possible. In a panopticum , the principle of visibility makes control possible. Foucault (1975) has shown how these spatial structures, that spread throughout Europe in the eighteenth century, gave rise to a society of supervision where procedures for partitioning space make possible the control and training of individuals. The principle of the panopticum applies, according to Foucault, to a great variety of situations: "All you have to do is place a guard in the central tower and in each cell place a crazy person, a sick person, a prisoner, a worker, a school child.... Each in their place, shut into a cell where they can be seen by the guard ... They are seen, but do not see ... It is here that lies the major effect of the panopticum, inducing a conscious and permanent state of visibility that ensures the automatic functioning of power."5 In workspace the control principle applies itself through the same spatial disposition which makes everyone in it visible; this is perhaps more subtle today but the goal of transparency and visibility remains the same. The second form control takes is linked to the spatial organization of communication. Space also organizes communication and makes the social system of a company into a highly programmed system. Space imposes certain communication arteries, formal channels that determine the functional structure of communication. Numerous examples show how communication is controlled by the disposition of space. An individual can not communicate with just anyone; because of the assignment system, communication is mostly limited to the category the individual belongs to. If one knows, for example, the activity, role and relative position of two individuals, the probability of interaction between them can be calculated by taking into account the characteristics of their environment. Using the concept of a social pyramid mentioned above, we have shown (Fischer, 1980) that ascending communication, that is communication from an individual in one category to another in the immediately higher category represents

Foucault, Michel (1975). Surveiller et punir. Paris, Gallimard. 201-202.

Chapter 1: Functional Analysis

53

an interaction cost estimated as being five to ten times higher than that of interaction within the same category. The functional principles of spatial organization thus show the dominant vision concerning workspace. At the level of the work station, space forms a structure that divides operating procedures into monofunctional segments. At the level of the company, it distributes roles and positions power in defined territories. The way that space is used forms the basis of the technical and social forms of organizational reality.

3 Influential Factors: Environment, Performance, and Satisfaction Studies on workspace have been especially orientated towards the identification of environmental factors that might influence job performance and satisfaction. One by one, disciplines as varied as organizational psychology, work sociology, ergonomics, and industrial engineering have looked into this domain. Among the factors identified by these "organization sciences," a certain number are directly linked to the dimensions of the work environment and concern the following aspects: - ambient conditions: temperature, air quality, the quality of lighting, the amount of noise, music; - physical characteristics of the work station: color, the quality of the equipment and furniture, the amount of floor space; - workspaces: differentiation between different organizational spaces, the place occupied by each person; - office layout: disposition of space and equipment (telex, fax, electronic mail, etc.); - building layout: separation and differentiation of work units, localization of the organization's different departments.

3.1 Physical Environment, Job Performance, and Cognitive Processes Numerous studies in industrial psychology have tried to show the influence of the physical environment on job performance. These studies have, in particular, brought to light the fact that the physical aspects of the environment, by constantly affecting certain physiological and psychological processes, influence job performance. Three different cognitive processes have been identified:

54

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

- Environmental stress Stress can be defined in a general way as the organism's psychological and physiological mobilization in response to an outside demand. In a work environment, it is mainly ambient conditions and the characteristics of the work station that are considered as being factors of stress. However, the notion of stress is relative as it is very difficult to decide a priori if such or such physical aspect of the environment automatically leads to stress (Fischer, 1992). Instead of adopting the view that suggests that the physical environment alone determines human behavior (which includes an individual's stressed or non-stressed state in any given environmental situation), it would seem more prudent and more suitable to think that behavior and environment mutually determine each other (Davis, 1984). There is thus stress when environmental "Stressors" cause an individual to loose control over this same environment. Several studies along this line show the stressful character of certain types of space disposition, especially the open environment and office towers. A study by the AN ACT (Agence Nationale pour i'Amelioration des Conditions de Travail)6 in France of 1760 employees showed that working in a tower made people aggressive as well as being the cause of a whole series of psychological and physiological problems: respiratory and cardiovascular problems, headaches, psychosomatic problems, etc.. This phenomenon has became so widespread today that environmental medicine uses the term "office building syndrome" to refer to it (Sterling, Sterling and Dimich-Ward, 1983). - Mental and physiological fatigue Fatigue is an impression of discomfort or a diminution of the ability to act (physiological fatigue) and think (mental fatigue). It can be said to be a warning signal and the bringing into play of the organism's defenses. - Distraction Distraction is the movement of attention of a subject from an initial object to another and represents an unconscious defense against a distressing situation. In studies on workspace, this variable applies especially to offices of the "open" or "landscape" type. In addition to these processes, several investigators have shown the general tendency of individuals to adapt to the different characteristics of an environment by progressively summoning up perceptual processes and action strategies that allow them to minimize the negative effects caused by the physical, objective elements of their work environment. In this perspective, "adaptation to environment" is certainly a factor that limits the impact that the effects of the ambient environNational Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions

Chapter 1: Functional Analysis

55

ment, the characteristics of the work station, and the lay-out itself, have on performance. These variables seem to influence the feeling of comfort rather than the actual performance (Dubos, 1980). Even though some studies on the subject seem to confirm the real effect of the physical environment on performance (Sundstrom and Sundstrom, 1986), it is necessary to underline the fact that this variable is the combined result of several other factors that are continually acting on the individual: motivation, personal skill and knowledge, professional experience, the quality of interpersonal relationships, etc..

3.2 Physical Environment and Job Satisfaction As we have already mentioned, it is industrial psychology, influenced by the human relations movement, that first began to study job satisfaction. This orientation is based on the idea that a comfortable and satisfied worker should perform better as he or she would be more motivated because of the comfort. The school of human relations is centered on the question of work motivation and relations between individuals and groups (Morgan, 1989). Among the theories usually attributed to this movement, three apply particularly to the organizational environment: the theory of need satisfaction, the theory of health and satisfaction factors, and the theory of interpersonal relationships. - The theory of need satisfaction Motivation theory shows the human being as a sort of psychic unity constantly fighting to satisfy their needs. The school of human relations is principally founded on the idea that individuals, like biological organisms, only function well when their needs are entirely satisfied. According to this theory, human beings are motivated by needs that can be classified hierarchically, from physiological to psychological needs, including social needs, the need for self esteem, and the need for self realization. The theory suggests that organizations take individual needs in to account in their systems as an element essential to job efficiency. Maslow's theory proposes a large range of means that can be used to motivate individuals at every level of the hierarchy. From the point of view that interests us here, this approach describes the physical environment as a factor that influences physiological needs, need for physical safety and security, and even the need for social relationships, as work organization and the physical lay-out of space are two elements that can help improve interaction between co-workers. - The theory of health and satisfaction factors Along the same line as Maslow's work, the theory of health and satisfaction factors looks at the work relation through two types of factors. The first, called sat-

56

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

Table I Levels of analysis, facets of the environment, processes, and outcomes Level of analysis

Facets of physical environment

Key processes

Outcomes

Individual workers

Ambient conditions Temperature Air quality Lighting Noise Music

Adaptation Arousal Overload Stress Mental fatigue Physiological fatigue Attitudes

Satisfaction Performance

Comfort Morale

Work-stations Color Equipment Chair Floor space Supporting environment Hallways Restrooms Work areas, etc. Interpersonal relationships

Organizations

Workspaces Differentiation

Identity and status

Adequacy of communication Group cohesion

Office layout Seating arrangements Furniture

Regulation of interaction Privacy Choices in communication

Buildings Separation and differentiation of work-units

Congruence of Organizational organizational process effectiveness. and structure with the physical environment

Source: adapted from Sundstrom (1986)

isfaction factors or motivation factors, include the work itself with its content, attributes, possibilities for promotion and success, feedback processes, recognition possibilities, and amount of responsibility linked to the task, etc.. The second, called health factors or dissatisfaction factors, are made up of elements such

Chapter 1: Functional Analysis

57

as salary, degree of supervision and control, institutional policies, quality of physical environment, that is to say, everything that is not an intrinsic part of the job. This theory thus looks at the physical environment as a health factor and not as a satisfaction factor which implies that the physical environment is not a motivation factor but rather a cause of employee demands. In other terms, employees only take the physical environment into account when it is unsatisfactory. This theory rejects the notion that changes that increase an individual's appreciation of, or satisfaction with, the physical work environment automatically increase their job satisfaction. This type of approach suggests that physical environment is rather a source of dissatisfaction or indifference for the individual and not a source of satisfaction or motivation. - The theory of interpersonal relationships Following the studies carried out by Mayo at the Hawthorne factory, work organization became the subject of studies that looked at its functioning from the angle of formal and informal relations between workers. The concept of the open plan office, and later of the landscape office, emerged from this preoccupation with interpersonal relationships. Thus the disposition of workspace in open areas was supposed to lead organizations to greater efficiency because this type of disposition was thought to improve a priori the interdependence between certain components: work relations, interpersonal communication, inter-group communication, individual and group performance, circulation of information, etc.. Let us retain from these theories the fact that they produced an image of the organization that has served as a reference in the conception of space based on the following hypothesis: when open workspace is organized, the circulation of information and communication between employees is improved. This introduction to these different factors and the theories that underlie them enables us to describe three distinct levels of analysis that each emphasizes different aspects of the physical environment, as shown by Sundstrom (1986): - The first level, the individual level of analysis, brings into play the cognitive and psychological dimensions of the individual. The accent here is on user reaction to different environmental variables that one then tries to link to notions such as job satisfaction and performance. Applied psychology, industrial psychology, and ergonomics have made this level one of their privileged fields of research. - The second level, concentrates more on interpersonal relations. Attention here is focused on improvement of communication (visual accessibility, physical proximity, etc.), group formation and cohesion, the role of workspace as a symbol, environmental design and its relation to work flow, supervision and coordination, interior disposition and social interaction. - Finally, at the organizational level, architecture and interior disposition have historically been the most analyzed. The goal here is to use the principle parameters of the physical environment to link as efficiently as possible the or-

58

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

ganizational processes (work flow, interaction framework, etc.) and the actual structure of the organization. Of these three levels, the individual level has, from an empirical point of view, been the most studied, as Sundstrom (1986) has again shown; this level counts nearly 68% of the studies done in this field against 24% and 8% respectively for the interpersonal and organizational levels.

Chapter 2: Symbolic Approach Using functional analysis we have been able to define a workspace organization based on strict rationality; this model has imposed itself in a normative way, leaving by the wayside an essential element. By rationalizing space, we see it only as a purely geometrical element that can be boxed and used as an instrument. In reality, it is always shaped by socio-emotional markings and symbolic values. In the first part of this book we mentioned the importance of this symbolic dimension. In this chapter we are going to take a look at how this dimension expresses itself in work situations. Its manifestation is not immediately evident; in other terms, to understand the material and functional environment we have talked about more completely, reference must be made to the work culture that underlies and appropriates this space through its codes, its values and its norms. It is this culture that reveals what this space is for us. This approach looks at workspace as a topological structure (Lewin, 1951), as space qualified (positively or negatively) by the nature of interactions, by the different systems of cognitive apprehension, and by the affective evaluation modalities at work there. Thus there are not two types of environment, one, technical and inhuman, and the other, based on individual experience and human. Such a distinction reveals a dichotomous view of reality. What concerns us here is rather a question of the materiality of space taking on life and human meaning because it is itself a social structure. This concept sees a social system as being determined by the impact left by the various interventions of the actors in it which give the system meaning. This concept can be applied to workspace in as much as, on one hand, it is a product of work conception and, on the other, it becomes a socio-professional structure with the integration of its constraints into the social dynamics of individuals and groups. In this sense, workspace is not a purely "technical" environment; it is human territory carrying the value attributed to acts and relations as parts of the organization. In this chapter we present several aspects of architectural space brought to light by semiotic analysis. This will help us to see space as a whole made up of symbolic forms linked to work perception in society and to the image an organization has of itself. Semiotic analysis of architectural space consists of showing that buildings are at the same time signs and instruments. To do this, we will look at several aspects that are especially meaningful and we will also report on several studies on this point.

60

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

1 Symbolic Figures in Architectural Space Workspace is first seen as the configurations that give a distinguishing style to all of its functions and activities taken together. But, these architectural forms are also emblems. When approaching an industrial zone, for example, aspects of the environmental reality change; a new landscape appears. As one nears the buildings a variety of indices, of which the sign system is one, furnishes explicit information; signposts, arrows, graphs, even greenery and car parks are part of the information and buffer systems that prepare the transition and are part of the architectural conception of work. Architectural space is, as we will see later, one of the elements an organization uses to show itself; using the visibility of the building as a reflection of the organization itself. This was not a preoccupation of older factories: they were organized around spaces necessary for production and its annexes. Today buildings are part of a conception in which they are stage settings for their companies. The fa9ade of a building can be considered as a store window; in reality, it is often a symbolic figure that does not refer to the actual work done there, but rather to the product. Every building can, in this sense, be compared to a face wearing more or less makeup, playing the double role of masking and displaying; work is more or less hidden behind an esthetic envelope. The treatment of architectural space accompanies and accentuates social differentiation linked to functions and activities. On one hand it clarifies and conceals constrained space, and, on the other, valorizes its role of decoration and comfort. As we can see, the esthetic message is fundamentally ambivalent. The role of displaying is particularly evident in places whose function includes interaction with the outside (reception of visitors, trades people, clients, or sales representatives). These are usually convivial places to create an impression of well-being and satisfaction. Their arrangement is based on a concept of openness and transparency. We can distinguish several types of space depending on their esthetic design. First of all, there is space freely accessible to visitors; this space habitually sets the scene for the organization; it is here that interior design is the most elaborate and decorum the most formal. Next, there is space that is accessible, after authorization, and with escort. This space is restricted to well-defined itineraries and demonstrates the technical character of the space visited. This space is at the same time supervised space; it is here, for example, that the most recent and most efficient equipment is found; it is the most valorizing of the company's functional space. Lastly, there is space accessible only to the company's personnel and located at a rupture point in this subtle articulation between what is shown and what is hidden, between accessible space and forbidden space, between visible space and space that has been made invisible.

Chapter 2: Symbolic Approach

61

Any building regulates this type of dialectic and sometimes increases the opposition between these two ways of qualifying space. Symbolic architectural space also comes into play at other levels; a building demarcates its own territory and announces its presence using various artifices. Industrial buildings are usually surrounded by fences or walls, because the usage of barriers or other enclosure is, here and elsewhere, a means of signaling private property: by delimiting a domain, one uses boundaries to separate it from all others, and gives the domain usage codes. These are protection and defense mechanisms used in other situations, but in the case of an organization, they are an important part of the rupture between the work environment and life away from work. Using boundaries, space includes and excludes; it includes personnel and excludes outsiders by not giving them free access to the space. Today walls have a tendency to disappear, but workspace remains, all the same, private space. The door is another architectural element that has its own importance. It marks the transition between one space and another and regulates the flow of people and objects. It structures the inside-outside relationship and punctuates arrivals and departures. A door essentially defines an opposition between private and public, but it also designates, at the work level, the relationship between belonging and not belonging; it works as a symbolic filter differentiating between authorized space and non authorized space. It signals the fact that one is in the organization's territory. Architectural elements thus give information about work. Any building, which is to say, any system of construction which has walls, a roof and an interior space layout, is in this sense a work biography along several axes. First of all, a construction is the result of planning that resulted in a certain number of dispositions. But, it is when the new building is finished that it really begins to live; in other words a building undergoes modifications that makes it into a product of multiform interventions depending on its interaction with technology, new work methods, products, and also the social play that governs all of its territory. In this respect, the architectural environment gives substance to the social structure; as a visible support, it discloses the organization it houses. Moreover, through its topography it defines a system of relationships; but it is the real control it exerts that that shows us how it transforms itself into a system that is more or less independent, more or less coherent, more or less hostile. We may thus say that any organizational environment tells a story, that is it transmits to its occupants or its visitors a message about the group that occupies it and on its manner of working. But, even though a building can be conceived by the management as a message about the company, its impact may be very different from the intentions of its decision makers. On this subject, Seiler (1984) cites the experience of a mechanical equipment company anxious to use its buildings as communication tools. This company had three principles: quality research rather than efficiency, valorization of means as

62

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

well as of ends, and expression of its responsibilities to the surrounding community. This last principle meant that the company's buildings should be well integrated into the community, which was a small agricultural town. So that the architecture of the buildings would be in harmony with the setting of the town, the company had a vast cement complex built, with a flat roof and large windows, plus a wing made of salmon colored brick, with white trimming, black shutters, and a steep roof. The management wanted to show its desire to integrate itself in the local context that it was still unfamiliar with. What happened was that the inhabitants made fun of the building, comparing it to a colonial style furniture store, an insurance company, a bank agency or even to a New England fast-food restaurant. Compared to what the company initially intended, the message conveyed by the building was in the least ambiguous, as the effect created was inversely proportional to the effect the managers had thought it would convey. This experience has the advantage of showing that workspaces do not just constitute abstract symbols, they are also laden with the symbolic meanings that people give to them.

2 Architecture as Artifact To take this dimension into account, scholars (Davis, 1984) have proposed the concept of symbolic artifact to interpret the complexity of architectural space by showing the strength of the symbolic properties that some think they have endowed it with and that others think they perceive. Davis calls symbolic artifact aspects of the physical environment that, separately or together, guide the interpretation of the company that occupies it. The disposition of workspace, the style and quality of the furnishings, wall color, carpeting are examples of this. Like any organizational action, they produce expected and unexpected consequences. The consequences are expected, or functional, when members of the organization "correctly" interpret the symbols and understand the "right" messages. When the artifacts are ambiguous or inconsistent, they produce unexpected consequences or dysfunction for the organization and discomfort for the users. According to Davis (1984), symbolic artifacts carry four principal messages: the type of organizational activities and priorities, the status of organization members, orientation with respect to the task, and the quality of the work environment. The type of organizational activities and priorities may be expressed through the architecture of the building, the disposition of workspace, the site, the urban neighborhood, or the geographic location chosen (Davis, 1984; Seiler, 1984).

Chapter 2: Symbolic Approach

63

Becker (1981) has noted that the representations created by the office environment are founded on functions or activities involving autonomy, innovation or creation. When functions demand efficiency and order, the representation recalls the administrative imperatives. When they express concern for the clients' satisfaction and professional service, the representation confirms the professional status of the users and provides comfort, security and the desired privacy for clients. In a study on public administration offices, Goodsell (1977) noted a tendency to use physical spatial characteristics and components to reinforce and legitimize department and personnel authority in the eyes of clients. Symbolic artifacts also carry messages about the status of the members of an organization; their role is to establish recognition of the personal value and power of users. They show visitors the rank and importance of members of the organization. They reinforce the weight of the social order governing the organization and legitimize the authority of its hierarchy (Edelman, 1978). Symbolic artifacts, moreover, also transmit messages about the nature of person-task relations. Storage space, tidiness of offices, lighting in transit areas are all artifacts that give information on work motivation and efficiency. They tend to have a positive influence on the mutual perceptions of group members as well as on the group's perception of organizational goals, on condition that these vectors valorize the task to be done (Davis, 1984). Lastly, symbolic artifacts reflect the attention paid to the quality of the work environment, even if, as we have seen, the esthetic aspect is more oriented towards users and visitors than towards employees (Davis, 1984). Messages carried by the physical environment can thus be understood in as much as they reflect, first of all, various uses of socio-physical resources (ease of access, for example), and also the environmental symbolism (the company's image of success) (Ellis, 1982). The symbolic figure of architectural space is thus not information a priori, it ensues from the interactions that give it attributes and depends on the orientations and stakes it represents. Parallel to descriptive research that points out the different aspects of the symbolic dimension, other research takes a more normative position and tries to establish a relation of adequacy between the symbolic structure, inscribed at the time of spatial conception, and activity, with the goal of making the design valid and efficient. Thus, Moleski and Lang (1982) give the following conditions that must be met to effectively inscribe symbols in an architectural environment: 1. knowledge of the organization's climate, products, and executives' views on the future of the organization; 2. knowledge of how the members of the organization and the public see the organization before drawing up architectural plans or plans for equipping a building.

64

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

To insure that the symbols used are functional and constitute a resource, they must be able to summon up images adopted by individuals and compatible with their needs. Though spatial organization and design style are factors that reinforce the company's identity and contribute to individual place appropriation (Moleski and Lang, 1982), problems caused by architecture and interior design are often due to the complexity and diversity of the roles played by the company's members and to the ambiguity and relative stability of the organizational structure. These problems also seem to be caused by a lack of understanding of the symbolic properties of the work environment because user expectations, experience, and interpretation of the symbols have not been adequately taken into account. This lack of understanding seems also to be linked to ambient attitudes that prefer structures and interior design that are in style.

3 Architecture and Work Culture Peponis (1985) emphasized a specific aspect of the symbolic dimension which he called the spatial culture of a company. He showed that work organization fulfills social roles that transcend purely technical roles and that these social roles can be described unequivocally. He establishes a correlation between an organization's design choices and spatial needs, and thinks that any interior arrangement, design in particular, has strategic effects on the workspace culture. This approach is based on the theory of a spatial syntax that describes and measures fundamental spatial variables in order to connect them to social interaction variables drawn from work theory. Taken as a whole, these variables define an organizational spatial logic. It is not enough to understand, in theory, the social properties of interior design, the fundamental strategic differences between one design and another must also be established. The way these differences are perceived characterizes in a subtle way workspace culture by showing the type of relations that exist between an organization and its design using the different variables at work. Industrial buildings^rsf of all, play a role in the environmental materialization of major organizational divisions. Management theoreticians proposed, to begin with, that people belonging to the same organizational department or sharing the same supervision should share the same space. Later, the principle of technological coherence of work time sharing opposed itself to that of spatial coherence of organizational groups (Miller, 1959). The fundamental question here is how do technology and space together define organizational units. Although the role of space in the definition of organizational limits is widely recognized, the relations between space and organizational status differentiation are less well understood.

Chapter 2: Symbolic Approach

65

Architectural research has, for example, suggested that status is more linked to symbols such as the dimensions of a space or the quality of its equipment, than to the properties of the configuration taken as a whole. Nevertheless, space plays a subtle, constant role in differentiating status depending on where it is located in the total configuration. Secondly architectural space also acts as a setting for control strategies. In certain rapidly evolving firms, management has physically isolated research and development groups to avoid conflict between research laboratories and workshops, and to keep control of the communication flow (Burns and Stalker, 1961). Moreover, in mining industries, a bureaucratic style of management, that limits confrontation between management and workers, has been instituted and enforces an even greater separation between offices and work force (Gouldner, 1954). Until recently, we were not very aware of the correlation between management style and space organization. Design conception was centered on specific details, used either as decoration added to work organization, or as control reinforcement (Mallick and Gaudreau, 1951; Manning, 1966). The search for new forms in the 1970s, nevertheless, enlarged the actual conception process of spatial design. Volvo's factories, for example, came up with the idea of a participation program that made it possible to do better work in buildings that offered identifiable territories for each work group (Gyllenhammar, 1977). On the whole, the relation between space and style of control is still ambiguous. The information available is fairly normative rather than being based on empirical studies and analysis. Control models are based, not only on the global configuration, but also on a subtle agreement concerning the impact of the building's design. The third major role of the environment seems to be linked to the fact that it gives rise to social relations that differ from those that are expected, programmed, part of, or directly derived from formal organization and factory rules. Studies on social relations between workers have shown that proximity relations have an influence on the formation of cliques (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939), and sometimes subject factory design to their own norms (Walker and Guest, 1952). Specific informal spatial interaction plays a crucial role in the environmental design styles that give workers a degree of "responsible" autonomy (Trist, Higgin, Murray and Pollock, 1963). But, as in control, there are very few precise clues to the physical parameters that produce the social interaction. One study has shown that, for a small sample of work organizations, there was no relation between the sum of interactions and distance (Farbstein, 1975). Another, contrary to general opinion, has proved there is no significant relation between the sum of interactions and the degree of subdivision of offices (Duffy, 1974). It is thus important to identify significant correlation between variables that describe the relational proprieties of space and interaction variables.

66

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

The social reality of organizational space implies that a certain number of architectural and environmental design rules are defined and shared by the members of an organization and that these rules are functional for everyday activities (Ellis, 1982). Individuals construct or modify their environment to facilitate relationships and they feel stress and discomfort when conventions are not respected (Scheflen, 1976). Consequently, for organizational space to fulfill its communication role, one must be familiar with the resources it can offer its users, the distribution of these resources, the social values that are attributed to them, and the meaning organization members give to them. As a result, messages conveyed by architecture should be consistent with the symbols the environment evokes for its users. These various approaches show that the symbolic dimension is the reflection of architectural space as seen by the individual, its user and actor, who interprets environmental data and stimulation to give meaning to what they do and to the organization in which they work. Organizational space, with its characteristics and components, thus cannot be reduced to a tool used only in accordance with production requirements. It is also a resource that is perceived and used to express individual and organizational values, these values being the very fabric of organizational culture (Fischer, 1987).

Chapter 3: Psychological Analysis 1 Work Territories Each workspace is a territory, that is, the result of processes that transform the physical space into psychological space; it is the domain of an organization's social life. This dimension was brought to light by a study carried out in a clothing factory, where a majority (74) of the 105 workers were women. Our observation was limited to the production environment, a large open area, separated into distinct departments. It is here that assembly operations were carried out. This zone also included social space and a cafeteria. A survey of the space, identifying the location of work stations occupied by men and those occupied by women, served as the basis of our approach. It permitted us to establish a map of activities and movements according to space type. Interviews done later helped us understand and explain the use of space.

1.1 Organizational Spatial Logic The configuration of the production space is of two distinct types: sedentary or mobile. Sedentary work stations have several variants that establish a relationship between spatial organization and specific constraints, depending on the degree of communication possibility. These variants are: - staggered sedentary work stations: they prevent any direct communication, an individual has to turn around to communicate; - parallel work stations: communication is possible from one row to the next; - face to face work stations: these could facilitate communication if a rack of clothes didn't prevent conversation and eye contact; - staggered work stations in facing rows: these are not favorable to communication because the distances between work stations are too great; - paired work stations: these are the only work stations that really allow communication between two individuals. We were able to verify that these different configurations are not due to any necessity. They are the conception of the engineers responsible for the organization, who, in order to privilege production, wanted to prevent any possibility of communication, thinking that these configurations were the most adapted to the tasks to be done.

68

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

As for mobile work stations, they are much less numerous and have two variants: the paired work station, particularly characteristic of cutting work, and the single work station where sampling is done. These work stations have one or two meeting or cooperation zones that privilege the exchange of formal information. Thus, the way space is structured conditions the way work is done and conveys peremptory decision information from hierarchical spheres. For example, the manager's orders are given to each department through the intermediary of each work team's supervisor (fig. 3) and stigmatizes individual mobility. Also, management regulations prescribe the use or non-use of space, depending on the case: - "No eating, smoking, or drinking in the production area." - "No personal objects other than purses and lunch bags may be taken to your work station." - "No talking on the job." - "No more than two toilet breaks per day during work time." These rules act as a social code governing space usage and define the conditions under which it is accessible. The result is that the relation to the physical environment is one of supervised freedom, as evidenced by several details: - the first is the location of the place workers check in and check out, located under the supervisor's office, it is a strategic supervision point; - the second is the division into departments that are supervised units with a supervisor always present; - the third is the spatial visibility ensured by the absence of partitions, a disposition in rows, and transparency; the foreperson can see at a glance if someone is missing and what the workers are doing. Several years ago, this supervision system was reinforced by the presence of a foreperson in a glassed-in office looking down on the production area; today this office is only used as a rest area for supervisors.

1.2 The Social Role of the Physical Environment The workspace also separates men and women and, doing so, creates a marked difference in their roles (fig. 4). We found that the work carried out showed division at two levels: that of the profession (which is to say, recognized, established, professional know-how), and that of the task (operational skills made mandatory by the organization of the work stations). Several types of professions were noted. There are exclusively masculine professions, such as that of tailor; stereotyped expressions show the force of this situation "It's a man's job. We would never hire a woman; women aren't made to do that kind of work."

Chapter 3: Psychological Analysis

Figure 3

69

Flow of information linked to spatial hierarchical position

There are also mixed professions, such as that of department supervisor, where there is a small proportion of women. These professions demand a good deal of mobility and higher than average professional qualifications. The only woman supervisor was assigned to a department considered as easier that the others, where light clothing is assembled and where, moreover, there are only women workers. Another mixed profession is that of finisher which consists in hand sewing clothes. In this case, however, the men tell the women what to do; they are responsible for the women's work. Women, therefore, do not have real professions as the men do, they have tasks to accomplish; their work is characterized by low qualification, sedentariness and considerable manual dexterity. Moreover, women's work often takes less physical effort that men's, consists of less complex operations, highly repetitive tasks, and few responsibilities, and is highly sedentary. How is this professional and social differentiation translated into the environment? We have seen that the assignment of men and women to distinct locations is determined by the social division of masculine and feminine roles and not by production logic. We were thus led to recognize the role played by space: in a company where work organization divides little or not at all, space acts as a separator; it is more an element of social segregation than an element of work division. From this can be

70

Figure 4

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

Man-woman work space distribution

drawn the idea that the environment is not only a support or reflection of a social system but also an agent that is active in social differentiation. Women's places show this differentiation clearly around three poles of opposition: large/small, well lit/badly lit, central/peripheral. - Large/small: Women's work stations are approximately three times smaller than men's and the density of feminine workspace is about 2.7 times higher. Technical division may explain part of the difference in size, but it cannot justify such a big gap. For example, space assigned to women samplers is three times as dense as that assigned to men samplers. - Well lit/badly lit: The production area is separated in two by a central passageway: on the west are located design offices with large window panes; on the east there is only one window in the wall overlooking the warehousing and shipment area. The western part houses the majority of masculine activities; it is well lit, near valorizing space (the design offices); whereas the eastern part houses the majority of feminine activities; it is badly lit and exclusively centered on production. This division of space according to a well lit/badly lit opposition gives positive or negative psychological value to places attributed to women and to those attributed to men. - Central/peripheral: This last opposition shows men as being at the periphery and women in the center. What signification does this central position occupied by the women have? In this workshop, the center is a transparent space,

Chapter 3: Psychological Analysis

71

with no partitions, with no space to retreat to, an area used by everyone as a passageway; but it is also silent space, as it contains all the individual, sedentary work stations, between which no information is allowed to circulate. On the contrary, the periphery is much more intimate space, where isolation is possible; it is more protected from supervision, and communication is possible. The work stations in the center are thus always less advantageous: little communication, easy supervision, little demarcation, and frequent intrusion. The women find themselves more "exposed," with no control over an open space, whereas the men, on the periphery, have more control over their space as they can limit access. To sum up, the central position occupied by the women makes their space eminently fragile, as it is subject to constant intrusion and control on the part of the men. Seen through these three oppositions, workspace is one vector of social differentiation; it is the setting of segregation that is not only linked to production imperatives, but also commanded by social logic.

1.3 Buffer Zones Within its strict programming, all workspace includes some ambiguous zones with loosely defined boundaries; these are buffer zones, zones that are on the limit between functional and non-functional. They are also called interstitial space (Moles and Rohmer, 1977), as they are usually of a peripheral character, as distinct from other space, as much from a topographical point of view as from a topological point of view. This notion of interstice defines "white" space, the latitude that each person has, latitude that may be sought after or latitude that may be the unwanted effect of a too rigid organization. The existence of this space results from the fact that the materialized boundaries of programmed space are in reality of an elastic nature; that is, more or less pressure can be exerted on them. This type of space corresponds to the freedom to act that exists in all organizational environments. In one way or another it escapes from expectations and from social control and allows the individual to free themselves, at least momentarily, from certain constraints. Sound knowledge of the organization and of its topological structure is needed to identify these spaces; they are not easily spotted and, in principle, suppose a certain distance from anything considered official. They are located in zones that resemble shelters or places that offer relative security. At any rate, these spaces are protected as management, at least in theory, never goes there; they are used for informal activity and are often reserved for senior workers. If, in some cases, these buffer zones are fairly hidden and labyrinthine, in others, it is simply the fact that informal interchange can be had there that gives them their statute.

72

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

In a large office where smoking is prohibited, we observed how smokers, allowed to frequently leave their work stations, had spotted buffer zones in their environment; they had transformed the time to smoke a cigarette into a pleasant pause. First they had smoked walking back and forth in the corridors and, as this environment offered little comfort, they had looked for a more satisfying and congenial place to smoke. A beverage vending machine where no one congregated and the switchboard operator's office, a little to the side and not frequented by management, were on their trajectory. This space gave them the opportunity to communicate informally and also to openly express their frustration at being "persecuted" smokers. This space was felt to be sufficiently undefined to escape from management control and became a communication space allowing a maximum of freedom. Such spaces exist in any company. Generally they play an important role in the set of regulations people develop to protect themselves from environmental constraints. They are refuge territories that provide the possibility of isolation, relaxation, and escape from the constant visibility that work involves. These spaces provide a possibility for momentary escape from constraint; social life takes over these spaces at one time or another seizing the opportunity of some unplanned activity. The notion of buffer space also implies the existence of certain spaces that the worker appropriates and that can become the object of demands or of fleeting pleasure. These spaces are not necessarily empty but they are potentially free and allow escape from constraint. The concept of interstitial space is not neutral and purely descriptive: on the contrary, it expresses a dynamics that is the setting for part of social life. This type of environment is often seen as being useless or lost; an inevitable parasite, it is in reality one of the domains that determine the livability of workspace.

2 The Symbolism of Power The symbolism of power is engraved in space. We have already seen that pyramidal space is the reflection of the hierarchical structure; we are now going to show that it also displays tangible signs of power's domination over others. Spatial assignment allows us to establish a power map for a company. Power over space expresses itself not only through the relative size of the space one has a right to, but also through the degree of accessibility it provides to the space of others. Depending on the place an individual occupies, he or she will be able to move around more or less freely within a more or less extensive radius. This concept shows that the value attached to occupying a space is directly proportional to the organizational power of the person occupying it.

Chapter 3: Psychological Analysis

73

Figure 5 Space, a symbol of power

It is for this reason that power symbolism and environmental symbolism reinforce each other. In certain connective situations, where space occupation, movement, and access to workspace are felt to be means of appropriating power symbols, this symbolism is especially evident. It reveals itself through elements of the topological structure, and is usually a privilege of the hierarchy. Distance can thus be more easily maintained if one has the power to open or close the door to one's office. One's position in an organization allows one to have more or less control over one's relation to space. This space itself has a tendency to function as a symbolic apparatus; the power environment defines a code that dictates its own interpretation of signs of power (fig. 5). The efficiency of the symbolism of power zones thus consists in creating a symbolism of power over space.

2.1 Place and Spatial Status The symbolism of space also has another consequence: workspace defines a system of places. This concerns the occupation of space and not just the functional components of assignment to a work station. On the psychological level, two types of phenomena can be observed: place identity and coding into good and bad places. Any space we occupy tends to be identified as a place, this is a process that

74

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

indicates an incorporation of space as a part of self and an assimilation of self with space. A worker defines the machine he or she works on and what he or she does in terms of place. They do not speak of it as a object detached from themselves but of themselves as occupying the machine. Worker and employee language usually reflects this symbolic assimilation with a space and the activity that takes place there: that's John's office, that's Mary's place. It is as though the place attributed to an individual were a system of control giving certain rights over the space and not just a nomenclature of the tasks that are carried out there. This process shows that identification with space is a way of connecting oneself to the social fabric; referring to a space can be a direct reference to an individual; for example, to talk about someone's office is to designate both the space the person occupies and the place they occupy. A space can also designate that which distinguishes or opposes individuals or groups; for example, in the clothing factory, men's space is clearly separate from women's space. Finally, space can be part of the identity of the person that it is used to refer to; for example, "All of us here at Renault." This mechanism of identification with a place does not only concern the individual, but also the group. In a porcelain production workshop, a group of six people doing various tasks on turning machines and presses had thus identified themselves with their machines, because of their complementary roles and tasks. The machines had become their rallying point for short breaks as, in a certain way, they represented the group. And the group, by congregating there, marked their identity and their anchoring point. In all companies, assignments are coded more or less strongly into good and less good places. The system of assigned spaces brings into play a set of rules that show that each space corresponds in a way to a success or failure symbol, a symbol of prestige or of indifference. Space assignments and role attribution always illustrate to some degree the implementation of this social code; an individual could have an interesting or important role and not be located in a sphere considered by the organization as being a good place. What is a good place? It is an assignment which satisfies and gratifies an individual and gives them relational assets through the position it occupies in the network of interaction. This place makes it possible for an individual to build relationships and to create an influence zone within the organizational system. The notion of "good place" thus translates the symbolic value of space assignment, coded by organization norms, but continually retranslated by the internal network norms of any given group.

2.2 Case Study An observation of an office system illustrates this inscription in space of the hierarchical symbols evoked above. This system is made up of 32 people, including

Chapter 3: Psychological Analysis

75

17 executives (fig. 6). Spatial occupation corresponds to a division of territory into three zones: a functional zone, a personal zone, and a communication zone (fig. 7).

2.2.1 Functional Zone The functional zone is occupied by the basic work tool of both employees and executives: the computer; this is the heart of the department. Everything revolves around this zone used mainly by executives. Employees only use part of this space and have to share access to it as there are not enough plotting boards for each employee to have their own. Access to the data printing room is reserved for only 3 of the 15 employees. Access to the computer room is limited by means of a special entry code, making this space especially protected. Moreover, it receives such care and attention that a veritable myth has developed about its use and performance.

2.2.2 Personal Zone The personal zone is made up of each person's place; it is here that the weight of the hierarchical symbols comes into play. The department head, for example, has a 26 square foot office, enclosed by four walls and a door and window looking out onto the department. His personal space is well delimited, but few marks of appropriation can be seen, as he seldom uses it. Even so, his rank gives him the right to a place with strong identification. The four other senior executives are installed in 25 square foot areas, each delimited by three 5 foot high screens. Contrary to the department head's office, their offices are open on one side giving a direct view of the department, but they are still relatively private. They spend an average of 60 per cent of their time in their offices where there is only slight indication of appropriation, such as briefcases, pictures of family and personal agendas. The sixteen other executives each have a 16 square foot personal space delimited by only two screens; what could be called semi-private space. They spend an average of 75 percent of there time there. Appropriation is more strongly marked with pictures of children or spouse, personalized agenda, briefcase, personalized writing pad, visiting card posted at the entry, etc.. Employees each have 12 square feet of open space, originally delimited by screens, along the corridor. A majority of employees didn't want the screens for the following reasons: "There's not enough air," "We like to be able to see what's going on around us," "We feel too crowded." These feelings seem to characterize two aspects of their situation: the impression of density and the non-private character of their space. They therefore asked the management to take the screens away and this was done.

76

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

ω

I

3 M

E

78

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

We have observed that it is this open space, difficult to privatize, that is the most personalized with a great variety of markers, from pictures of children, friends, and relatives, knickknacks, green plants, flowers, posters, vacation souvenirs, to personalized drawings. This appropriation is lived as being the expression of emancipation from the management sphere, through establishing a strongly personalized group territory.

2.2.3 Communication Zone The department has a small conference room adjacent to the offices, but closer to executive space than to employee space. A number of daily activities take place there: the projection of films, meetings, job formation, conferences. This space is used 76 per cent of the time by executives, 10 per cent of the time by employees, and 14 per cent of the time for mixed activities. The analysis of these distinct zones makes it possible to show that behavior is strongly linked with territory; that is characteristically revealed by the relative freedom of movement manifested by different department members (fig. 8). As we have seen, the department head moves from one zone to another without meeting either physical or psychological barriers. He uses the environment as if it were his own. He controls, administers and explores it in its entirety without constraint. This formal dominance is, however, modulated: he moves through the executive zone with self-assurance, he practically never enters the employee zone, and, moreover, has no direct contact with his employees. In spite of this, the environment seems as familiar to him as his own home. The other senior executives function in the same way as the department head. However, because they are there more often, they give the impression of a greater appropriation of their personal space. The majority of their displacements are in the executive zone, leaving the control over employee space to their subordinates. Their presence expresses itself more particularly in their personal space and in their functional space. Although they are responsible for the employees, they seldom enter their zone and only make their presence felt by being at the threshold of their area. They must, of course, show their dominance over employee space, especially in order to weaken the employee's feeling of having private space. As for the employees, they do not frequently move around and, when they do, they habitually use the same routes. They are either in their work area or using the corridor to get to this area or to their locker. Their work generally reduces their sphere of action, and this contributes to their social isolation in the company. In addition to these movements, there are zones where socialization is possible; these are environments used for functional or informal interaction. Executive social zones are multiple and mobile and can spread to different parts of their space. No clear distinction can be made between functional and informal socialization. Socialization is part of basic activity. We also observed that socialization

79

Chapter 3: Psychological Analysis

ο

60 (li

ο

υ ο es

2 C3

'S crt

rt C

o l

l-2 "p

«3

ca

C«

u o Ν U

υ u

oo

H3

M

E

80

Part Two Workspace: Conflicting Points of View

was often between two, three, or four people at once, at any time of the day. When socialization becomes more functional, it has a tendency to take place in a communication zone. Employee socialization zones are smaller and fixed as they move about very little or not at all. Their conversations almost always take place between only two persons, during work hours. Almost no movements are made with the goal of socialization. They converse with the person next to or facing themselves, especially when there is no supervisor present. Employee space is reduced to functional space in the work milieu. Mobility in a space facilitates control over that space. Thus, the executives, through their behavior, their reflexes and their activities, clearly display their control of the territory. They reduce the field of action of their employees to functional space. This observation shows that workspace organization catalyses the distribution of space into a system of greater or lesser dominance, according to the valorization of the zones thus defined. From the general presentation of this approach, it becomes apparent that workspace can be read at two distinct levels, rational and symbolic, which are the stakes of social dynamics. This point will be discussed in Part Three.

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

The organization of space gave us a glimpse at the stakes that workspace represents; it houses two types of practices (technical and social) that overlap and create either diffused or focused permanent conflict. Using these findings we are going to analyze the everyday relation to workspace. From a psychological point of view, these relations show that the individual does not strictly fit into the rigid division of functional space; the individual is not completely defined by the weight of environmental constraints. Even if individuals adapt themselves to the physical environments that are imposed on them, they do not fit in neatly in the mechanical sense of the term. In addition, an individual's relation to the environment disrupts the rigidity of the system and expresses itself through forms of appropriation characterized by personalization and functional subversion in a more or less successful search for satisfaction. Such a relation illustrates the value of socio-spatial practices that make possible different forms of learning and discovery based on complicity, exploration and familiarization with the milieu. This relation reveals a social dynamics in the heart of the work system that manifests itself by means of territorial behavior, the value of personal space, and appropriation strategies. This forms a dialectics of professional reality that we will examine more closely.

Chapter 1: Territorial Behavior The way in which individuals fit into space is never limited to the functional dimension of the space they work in; each person decodes environmental stimulation and constraint and responds with forms of intervention, intended or not. These interactions, taken together, form the heart of a dialectics between space constraints and human behavior from which rationality is often absence. We will introduce here several of the most significant expressions of this phenomenon.

1 Territories as They Are Experienced Workspace appears to us first of all as a place in which we live; it is progressively invested as being a sphere of personal space. Through multiple involvement, an individual expresses a fundamental tendency to domesticate the environment around them by transforming it into their own sphere of influence. They thus create ways of doing things that facilitate tasks; they react to intrusion with typical territorial defense; and they organize adaptation systems that reflect the importance of this ascendancy. It is around the work station that this can be seen the most clearly, as the work station has a tendency to be lived as being a space one is somewhat owner of. This space is characterized as a sort of personal shell, more or less seen as valuable, but with which we identify ourselves: it defines our place. Beginning with this role of centrality, each one develops, within a more or less vast environmental context, diversified forms of interaction, often difficult to spot from the outside. Three situations that are easy to grasp will allow us to understand the most frequent manifestations of this. First of all, the period of time following one's entry into a new work environment shows that all professional integration goes through specific modes of relation to space; it is a question of experiencing the spatial system that one progressively tries to recognize and identify. Characteristic phases of trial and error mark the value of space as an environment full of uncertainties. The frequency of moving around during breaks is one third lower than that allowed as observed among new employees in an industrial design department (AncelinSchutzenberger, 1978). We have also noted, that in 32 per cent of the cases observed, individuals were not familiar with space outside the sphere of their own work group one month after being hired. More generally, there is a phase of exploring the new environment that is progressive and that, in a certain way, is mediated by the group the individual belongs to.

84

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

Acquiring territorial knowledge is, for the new arrival, a ritual form of becoming part of a group, it allows him or her to understand work functioning, and, at the same time, it can be said to act as an evaluation of their social integration. The newcomer, thus, does not know that certain meetings are held in such and such a distant spot, does not know how to get certain information; old-timers still keep him or her away from territories they control. On a theoretical level, the concept of progressively belonging to a space seems to imply, moreover, a sufficient time on the job after which the process of integration-appropriation takes place on a larger scale. It is not by chance that one can claim to effectively belong only after a minimum time at a work station. This is, moreover, confirmed by the mandatory trial periods and internships newly hired employees must complete before getting their final contract: satisfactory insertion in an activity or function does not only depend on competence-task adequacy, but equally on the quality of potential integration that a new job represents. Adaptation to work can not be reduced to simply mastering a function, it also involves spatial insertion in a real environment. We can thus understand that a correlation exists between the process of social integration and the phase of becoming familiar with professional territory. Another specific modality of environment-behavior interaction consists of the value of spaces that provide retreat or refuge. Indeed, knowledge of and familiarity with a site, acquired over the years, form a rich mental reference system that is a symbolic rewriting of the material environment. In this case it is possible that the mental topological divisions only partially cover the material space, as the individual expands or shrinks them depending on their importance for himself. A worker, through a set of relationships, will thus progressively identify different spaces as being good or bad, positive or negative, warm or cold, interesting or without interest. This is a cognitive evaluation that illustrates the social value of retreat, of refuge. Certain environments are places that provide consolation for the constant visibility and heavy constraint that weigh down on individuals. A system of preferences for, or avoidance of, these areas can be noted, but it is not possible to foresee their real value or their future role. It is through an organization's internal dynamics that one can observe how certain spaces are the privileged settings for more or less explicit forms of parallel life. It is important to underline the role played by this type of space: it is always space that underlies or accompanies an affirmation of personalization and defense in reaction to principles of interchangeability and repetitive work logic whose organization does not easily tolerate the unexpected in either technical realms or in behavior. During our observations we noted that these spaces were essentially characterized as being places for micro-events. In any organization, regulation of reality takes place through micro-phenomena. This shows that rationality leaves everyday life somewhere by the wayside, in spite of its pretention to control it. These little daily events, that in some degree escape from the mechanisms of the system, are able to survive because of the role played by various tolerances. One type of interaction with space detects all the space thus left fallow in order to appropri-

Chapter 1: Territorial Behavior

85

ate it and at the same time give it a use that partially deviates from technical use. Although using this kind of space may place individuals in an irregular situation, it does not actually cause any real disturbance because the system is not sensitive enough to intercept these mini-transgressions that do not hinder activities and do not really attract any attention from the hierarchy. We thus see social micro-structures sprout up, made up of these microphenomena that by definition must stay hidden and without any real consistence because as soon as they become sufficiently visible they are eliminated or taken into account by functional decisions that make them controllable. For example, in one workshop, a small informal space that had been vaguely tolerated for worker use during breaks was transformed into an official place for taking breaks, complete with beverage vending machines, because the hierarchy had been annoyed by the informal gatherings that, in their eyes, were fairly uncontrollable. By officializing a practice and assigning it a place, management gained control over these gatherings. These observations show the nature and the role of territorial behavior: space is an object of investment because it is an element of the affirmation of personal identity as we will try to show. Altman and Davis (1976) showed that, when at work, individuals conform to powerful social rules concerning territorial control and privacy. They can know in what category of territory they are if they know how to identify the signs and symbols of control according to the set of territorial signs that the company and the personnel use. In this way they adopt appropriate territorial behavior. These notions were put into practice when designing an organization employing about two thousand people, starting with the symbols used by the personnel in their previous situation. These symbols permitted the elaboration of criteria to facilitate the recognition of rules governing the use of different territories in order to stimulate appropriate behavior. Altman and Davis think that such factors are especially important in the case of a large organization where an outsider cannot recognize the role or the status of the occupant. They noted all the principle elements that indicated control of the different territories, presented in the following tables. Table II gives a summary of the types of symbols that individuals tend to use in workspace to help others recognize different territories. Table III gives a summary of the criteria recommended for better territorial control when designing a new physical environment.

86

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

Table II Territories: Cues and symbols of control Territories at the workplace

Occupants

Cues and symbols

Individual to whom place is normally assigned as primary territory.

Perceived territorial control and responsibility of individual members of the group.

These communicate to users what category of territory this is, who controls it, and appropriate behavior patterns.

no-one

none

Corporate signs only. Absence of barriers.

no-one

none

Decor by corporation. Consistent with corporate image. No personalization by individuals. Signs are functional, directional or corporate only.

First corridor entering off the general corridor.

members of group of 40 to 70

low

Signs identify the group. Display of information about the group work or function. Change of scale. Change in ceiling height, lighting, wall finishes, carpet.

Conference room at entrance alcove to general corridor.

members of group of 40 to 70

low

Location within group territory. Scale. Control of scheduling is by a member of the group. Items displayed in conference room are related to group work.

intermediate

Group signs. Scale. People present. Equipment. Project gear and notes. Closed door.

Public Territories Places around the building. Parking lots. Outer entrance lobby.

General Territories Main corridors. Stairs and fire exits. Cafeteria seating area. Library reading area. General conference room.

Group territories

members of Lab space for major group of shared-use 15 to 35 instruments. Environment chamber.

cont. ·

87

Chapter 1: Territorial Behavior

Cues and symbols

Territories at the workplace

Occupants

Aisles opening off first-entry corridor. Group discussion area for 4 to 5 people off aisle.

members of group of 2 to 12

fairly high

Location within territory of group of 2 to 12. Scale. Group and individual personalization of territory. Dividers between individual work-stations are scene elements.

Transient secondary individual work-place in technical lab or project planning lab serving 40 to 70.

members of group of 40 to 70

fairly low

Location within territory of group of 40 to 70. Scale. Group signs. Project gear and equipment.

Transient secondary individual work-place in technical lab or project planing lab serving 15 to 35

members of group of 15 to 35

intermediate

Location within territory of group of 40 to 70. Scale. Group signs. Project gear and equipment. Group gear and equipment. Individual notes and gear.

Transient secondary members of individual work-place group of in group conference or 2 to 12 group work area.

fairly high

Location within territory of group of 2 to 12. Scale. Group signs and personalization. Group notes and project gear. Individual notes and gear.

Assigned secondary individual work-place in lab

one staff member

high

Location within group territory, Scale. Individual personalization. Individual notes and project gear.

Primary work-place for one person

one staff member

very high

Location within territory of group of 2 to 12. Scale. Individual personalization, notes, project gear.

Individual territories

Source: Altman and Davis (1976)

88 Table III

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace Control of Territories.

Territories at the work-place

This is my home base Who

I do work here

My Who individual control and responsibility

My

I just pass through Who

individual control and responsibility

My individual control and responsibility

Public Territories Places around the building. Parking lots. Outer entrance lobby.

no-one

none

security and negligible maintenance staff

all staff negligible plus visitors and public

none

staff of service groups: librarians, cooks, etc.

negligible all staff plus some visitors

General Territories Main corridors. Stairs and fire exits. Cafeteria seating area. Library reading area. General conference room.

no-one

low

Group territories First corridor members low of group entering off the general corridor. of 40 to 70 Conference room at entrance alcove to general corridor. Lab space for major shared-use instruments. Environment chamber.

members interof group mediate of 15 to 35

Aisles opening off members first-entry corridor, of group Group discussion of 2 to 12 area for 4 to 5 people off aisle.

fairly high

members of negligible other groups

staff and visitors

negligible

other staff

other staff

low

staff and visitors

negligible

low

members of low other groups

cont. ·

89

Chapter 1: Territorial Behavior

I do work here

I just pass through

other members of group of 40 to 70

low

other staff and visitors

negligible

Transient members intersecondary of group mediate individual workof 15 to 35 place in technical lab or project planing lab serving 15 to 35

other members of group of 15 to 35

fairly low

other staff and visitors

low

Transient secondary individual workplace in group conference or group work area.

members fairly of group high of 2 to 12

other members of group of 2 to 12

intermediate

other staff low

Assigned secondary individual workplace in lab

one

others in lab intermediate

Primary workplace for one person

one

Territories at This is the work-place my home base Individual territories Transient secondary individual workplace in technical lab or project planning lab serving 40 to 70.

members fairly of group low of 40 to 70

high

individual

and visitors

other staff negligible

and visitors

very individual high

other members of group of 2 to 12

low

other staff none

and visitors

Source: Altman and Davis (1976)

2 Personal Space and Identity Workspace is experienced as being personal space . A certain number of investigations into this dimension see workspace as a medium through which individuals can express their identity and their status in the organization's hierarchy (Sundstrom, 1986; Moleski and Lang, 1982). This expression of identity is reflected in several types of relation to space: 1. personalization of space, 2. territoriality,

90

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

Figure 9 Marking and personalization of space

3. participation in design, 4. hierarchy status markers.

2.1 Personalization of Space Identity can first of all be expressed through the personalization of space. Sommer (1974) defines this as the decoration, modification or deliberate redesign of space

Chapter 1: Territorial Behavior

91

by its user, in a way that reflects his or her personal value (fig. 9). In the organizational context, this process depends on two factors: 1. the person must occupy a space that is recognized as his or her own territory, 2. the user must have a certain degree of liberty to adapt it and control it (Sundstrom, 1986). The degree of personalization may thus be an indicator of the liberty and control an individual has in an organization: the more a place is personalized, the greater the latitude for autonomy. Indeed, for a large part, the degree of personalization does seem to be linked to a level of responsibility in the hierarchy. However, even if this correlation is established, it has to be modulated because of a certain number of specific constraints; the principle ones being organizational pressure to adopt an appearance or a specific office arrangement, according to status, such as the principle of order and efficiency in some offices, or the esthetic norms of the landscape environment (Sundstrom, 1986). The dimensions of a workspace, its characteristics and its physical components can also be both resources and constraints for personalization. The desire for, or the feeling of, belonging to the social organization also seem to play a role at this level (Sundstrom, 1986). Finally, experts in architecture and interior design may also prevent any change through the interior design characteristics themselves. The environmental competence of the users can in this case develop mechanisms of personalization (Moleski and Lang, 1982). Personalization makes recognition of individuality possible and seems to have positive repercussions on job satisfaction (Sundstrom, 1986). This personalization may also inform others of our tastes, our preferences, our opinions, and our attitudes (Sundstrom, 1986). It is thus a message about ourselves addressed to colleagues and visitors. Goodrich (1982) goes as far as saying that personalized workspace reveals the work style of the occupant. Thus "visual" people who need to see things and to have their documents neatly arranged have a tendency to prefer the privacy necessary for reading and spend time organizing their documentation. On the contrary, "aural" people, who need to be able to discuss things with others, will have a tendency to facilitate meetings and discussions; they will spend more time arranging tables and chairs to welcome visitors. In the same way, space seems to be an indicator of each person's organization: spreading things out would seem to correspond to a horizontal organization and using shelves to a vertical one. This type of indicator gives us information about the organized or unorganized aspect of a space; for example, for Goodrich, the need for order is greater for people who accumulate things, he calls them pack-rats, than for those he calls neatrats, who prefer not to keep things that are no longer useful. Finally, space can give information on an individual's flexibility. "Rigid" personalities have a tendency to mark and organize their territory in a way that satisfies their personal demands,

92

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

whereas "flexible" personalities have a tendency to let others modify their space according to work needs (Goodrich, 1982). Messages transmitted by a personalized space can influence relations with others (Sundstrom, 1986); familiarity with a space's physical components can put people at ease; the feeling of comfort provided by an impression of relaxation and openness to others can facilitate communication (Hall, 1966). In sum, such messages can clearly indicate who has power and reveal the identity of a territory's occupant.

2.2 Territoriality Another expression of identity, complementary to the personalization of space, manifests itself through territoriality. Its principle role is that of regulating social interaction; it constitutes a zone of control that makes it possible for the user to have mastery over their interpersonal relations (Sundstrom, 1986). Workspace is experienced as being personal territory in as much as the user marks it as their own by controlling it. It becomes primary territory if the user is the only occupant, if he or she occupies it principally and frequently, and if he or she has rights, recognized by others, over the access to and use of this space (Altman, 1975). Territorial behavior seems to depend on three factors: 1. the nature of the user's job, 2. the stability of the group they belong to, 3. their personality (Sundstrom, 1986). The occupation of a space recognized as being one's personal territory implies involvement and is an indicator of the strength of the feeling of belonging and of the degree of commitment to the organization. Goodrich (1982) noted that people who occupy an office have a tendency to divide it into three zones: 1. a personal area, 2. a public area, 3. a transit area, between personal and public space. Moreover, it can be noted that an individual adopts dominating behavior when in their own territory.

2.3 Participation in Design Identity can also express itself through participation in spatial design (Sundstrom, 1986). When, for example, they have the possibility to participate in the decisions concerning the design of their own office, individuals can express their needs and

Chapter 1: Territorial Behavior

93

expectations and thus increase their job satisfaction. User participation creates certain forms of attachment to workspace and facilitates the impression of belonging, and, at the same time, improves decision quality in this domain. Curiously enough, management feels that employees should participate more in spatial design (Sundstrom, 1986). Their involvement is usually limited to the personal shell of their own space: size, choice of furnishings, arrangement, choice of colors and plants. This limited participation can be explained partially by the fact that fairly often employee consultation only takes place when practically everything is done; their preferences are solicited only concerning finishing touches (Sundstrom, 1986).

2.4 Hierarchy Status Markers Personal identity, in part acquired by hierarchical status, can express itself through the use of status markers. These markers represent, in a concrete and visible way, the rank and real power an individual has (Sundstrom, 1986). This is a process through which position in the hierarchy and in interactions is indicated symbolically by the physical characteristics of the workspace and its components. Environments for management thus include typical symbolic status expression through quality of furnishings, capacity for personalization, control over access, and amount of space. Management, moreover, seems more sensitive than other categories to the presence of status markers, because they give them credibility with their subordinates and because they increase their authority (Konar et al., 1982). But such symbols can provoke strong emotional reactions when they become exaggeratedly important (Steele, 1973). Status markers also play a role in communication, in reward, and in support (Sundstrom, 1986). Parallel to other indicators, such as diplomas and dress, the physical characteristics of space provide information to organization members and to outsiders, on status, authority and rank in the organization (Sundstrom, 1986; Konar et al., 1982; Duffy, 1969). Status markers can also fulfill the role of reward for successful completion of a difficult task; they can also show recognition of superior skill, excellence, or success (Sundstrom, 1986; Konar et al., 1982; Halloran, 1978). They can also be incentives for future achievement, to the extent that an effort is made to obtain them (Konar et al., 1982). Lastly, they can be a work support when they have functional value or are instrumental to task completion and help one to assume responsibility (Sundstrom, 1986). Several categories of status markers have been identified by various investigators: 1. location,

94

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

2. accessibility, 3. furnishings, 4. personalization (Sundstrom, 1986; Konar et al., 1982). Proximity to where decisions are made, floor, view of the outside or of an interior courtyard are markers linked to the location of an office in a building. Control of access is another marker; it may be facilitated by occupying a private office, by the quality of materials used, or the existence of a door. In this respect, a waiting room with a secretary in it to filter visitors and information makes the situation even more significant. Furnishings can reflect several types of markers: style of desk and other furnishings, comfort of chairs, quality of carpet, curtains, works of art, coat rack, coffee table, sofa, etc.. In brief, the size of the space occupied and its location, the quantity and the quality of the furnishings, the degree of personalization, visual and acoustic privacy, either through access control or through control over disturbance and interruption, are all symbols of personal identity and their presence seems to favorably influence job satisfaction (Wineman, 1982).

3 Territory and Privatization A last aspect of territorial behavior is the process of privatization. In an organization, where space, by definition, is not private, the phenomenon of privatization is a paradox and has significance, whatever the type of work. Sundstrom (1986) notes three forms of privatization: verbal, acoustic and visual. Verbal privatization is essentially the power to freely communicate confidential matters; acoustic privatization, that of not being distracted or disturbed by the conversations of others or by the noise of machines, telephones, or other equipment; visual privatization, that of being screened from the view of others. This variety of expressions underlines their importance. It has been observed that many people prefer a workspace that is private, protected from noise, conversations, and out of sight, because it protects their personal image and allows them to work more efficiently (Westin, 1967; Altman, 1975; Sundstrom, Burt and Kamp, 1980). Moreover, the value attached to occupying private space is due to the fact that this type of space is often a symbol of high status and thus reflects the importance of individuals in the organization (Steele, 1973). On the other hand, the difficulty, or even impossibility, of privatizing one's space is lived as dissatisfaction. The reasons evoked most often seem to be: noise, neighbors' conversations, being in sight of others, visits, people saying hello in passing, and the feeling of being too close to others (Wineman, 1982; Hedge,

Chapter 1: Territorial Behavior

95

1982; Sundstrom, Burt and Kamp, 1980). Hedge (1982) makes a distinction between disturbance and interruption; disturbance is discomfort caused by background noise and movement around one; intrusion causes an involuntary and undesired interruption of work. While background noise and intrusion detract from work; conversation between people or on the telephone bothers others (Wineman, 1982), because this "noise" carries information that arouses curiosity (Nemecek and Grandjean, 1973), or because one spontaneously gives meaning to what others are doing (Goodrich, 1979).

3.1 Mechanisms of Privatization Privatization is a dynamic use of space; it shows that the individual is never completely passive in any environment, constraining or not. To be more precise, privatization is a mechanism of interaction regulation that brings into play territorial behavior and influence over personal space. These two elements overlap with cultural practices such as customs and norms (Altman, 1975). In the work environment these phenomena depend on a certain number of factors. The architecture of a building can facilitate or prevent the processes of privatization; the visual and acoustic insulation obtained by using physical barriers produces what investigators call architectural privacy (Sundstrom, Burt and Kamp 1980). Wineman (1982) enumerates several elements having an incidence on visual and acoustic privacy, especially spatial orientation, distance from others and size of the workspace. To this list can be added the existence or not of walls, screens and furniture; the quality of material (degree of absorption, reflection and transmission) and, lastly, organizational norms and policies. According to Goodrich (1982), privatization at work can be obtained by the use of physical and psychological barriers, such as plants, dimmed lighting, or task/ambient systems like table lamps producing an effect of intimate ambient lighting. Problems associated with privatization have mainly been studied in open plan or landscape offices. According to Hedge (1982), people who work in these offices experience problems linked to a loss of privacy (psychological and architectural), to stress caused by visual and acoustic disturbances, to frequent interruption of work, and to ambient conditions (odors or smoke, temperature, lighting). Moreover, Sundstrom, Burt and Kamp (1980) emphasize the fact that individuals who feel that their workspaces give privacy also tend to find them less noisy, less upsetting, and larger than those who think they give them little privacy. Privacy seems to be associated with the degree of physical enclosure and with the number of other people close by. This seems true even for relatively accessible zones. At work, individuals thus need a certain degree of privacy, not only to preserve their identity and autonomy, but also to efficiently carry out their tasks. Apparently, in many cases, employees obtain the privacy they desire, in spite of physical

96

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

design, through the use of signs or symbols (for example: "Do not disturb") and through the elaboration of rules governing social interaction (Sundstrom, Burt and Kamp, 1980).

3.2 Types of Privacy Needs Sundstrom et al. (1982) studied privacy needs in three groups of subjects. The first was composed of 88 office employees, the second of 44 accountants, and the third of 22 managers. Differences among the three groups concerning perceived privacy were observed and explained in the following manner. The secretaries work in an environment that gives them little control over access to their territory, for them privacy consists in being able to maintain an optimal level of social contact and in being able to avoid crowding. The accountants work in environments with more enclosure; control over access is thus possible. For them the need for privacy corresponds to the need to be able to concentrate on their task and avoid distractions, interruptions, and noise. The managers work in private areas, completely enclosed; controlling access or being able to concentrate are not problems for them. Their privacy need is to preserve autonomy by being out of sight of their superiors and colleagues; this is reflected by the presence of visual and acoustic barriers. The need for privacy thus seems to have several levels; once one level is satisfied, an individual aspires to the next level. The first is the need to control access to workspace, the second, the need to limit distraction or interruption, and the third, the need to be able to communicate informally with others.

3.3 Perception of Privatization While architecture, quality of furnishings, and design induce perception of elements of workspace that are privatized or susceptible of being privatized, it is also necessary to take other factors into consideration when explaining such a phenomenon. Goodrich (1982) mentions several factors: how well one knows the other people sharing the same space, norms governing the use of private space (Golan and Justa, 1976), the subject's sex (Josefowitz, 1980), the degree of group cohesion, group size, the degree of task complexity, age, belonging to a group of smokers or non smokers, etc.. Women seem to be more reticent to close their office door because they want to stay available to their colleagues and subordinates; they also seem to have a tendency to prefer open space, especially if they are alone, to assure their personal security. People over forty seem to seek privacy more than younger people. It has also been observed that people belonging to cohesive groups need less privacy than those in groups with little cohesion.

Chapter 1: Territorial Behavior

97

According to Goodrich (1982), the demarcation of territory boundaries with physical or psychological barriers is an important aspect that influences the feeling of privatization in workspace. Barriers put up by the occupant or furnished by the organization make it possible to establish a clear distinction between oneself and others, between one's group and other groups. In addition, they allow the user to feel free in that space, to control its access, and , at the same time, to reinforce his or her own perception of privatization. If the boundaries of a work zone are not well demarcated, or are not at all demarcated, the user may feel more vulnerable, feel themselves exposed to disturbance and to interruption, incapable of controlling their own space, and thus complain about lack of privacy. The definition of private territory is thus an important mechanism in social regulation, because it fulfills the three functions enumerated by Altman (1975): an interpersonal function, by controlling social interaction; a function of interface between self and others, by establishing a clear distinction between the two; an individual function, by protecting personal identity and image

Chapter 2: Perception of Workspace Territorial behavior reflects the fact, that, as we have just seen, an individual "manages" their relation to space: this relation is both a cognitive mechanism that allows them to situate themselves, to identify places, to do their job, to face danger, and a emotional evaluation that allows them to react positively or negatively to the physical environment and thus to consider it as a factor of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. One of the important modes of this interaction is the perception of the environment that brings to light two phenomena that we will look at more closely: individuals carry with them images of space as well as ideas on work; at the same time, these images are an evaluation of the environment. In other terms, the experience of relation to space carries meaning through which individuals express the feeling they have about what they do as well as about their own identity. Workspace is thus "treated" according to the mechanisms we are now going to investigate. Triandis (1977) defined the perception of social environment as being subjective group culture that is learned through cognitive structures (beliefs, associations, stereotypes) that are specific to the culture and which modulate evaluation. These structures create uniformity of group response when faced with a social object. This has for consequence, on the one hand, signification of group belonging, and, on the other hand, differentiation from others. According to the author, these effects can be explained by the fact that the elements of the cognitive structure are determined by criteria of group member proximity: shared language, activities, and work environment. Proximity is thus a factor that induces a similarity of evaluation in a group. Using these indications, we will first present different research orientations developed in certain studies on the evaluation of work environment; then we will analyze the semantic structure of workspace by applying the semantic differential technique to employees and workers of a small company.

1 Research Orientations Environmental evaluation is a process through which one can decide to what extent the environment can facilitate reaching one's goals (Canter and Rees, 1982). Individuals have a tendency to look for optimal environments, environments that furnish them with the best possibilities of attaining their goals (Stokols, 1978). The effects of the evaluation process are emotional responses associated with the level of environmental satisfaction and environmental attitudes. Each char-

100

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

acteristic of the environment can potentially stimulate global individual reaction. This provokes perceptual mechanisms that rely on the cognitive system that in turn commands more environmental information gathering, which is to say, exploration and manipulation behavior. In addition, this cognitive elaboration enables one to acquire new knowledge about the environment, to perfect one's cognitive representation, and to choose which action to undertake. The evaluation process thus starts with cognitive representation; this consists essentially in comparing direct perceptions of environment with predefined qualitative norms (Stokols, 1978). Evaluation takes place on several levels: cognitive, esthetic, emotional, functional, normative, active, and temporal (Levy-Leboyer, 1982). This multiplicity of elements gives any aspect of an environment a specific tone and results in a specific level of satisfaction or of dissatisfaction. Satisfaction depends on subjective evaluation. An individual's perception of an environment and the norms he or she uses to judge it by are key factors in the evaluation process (Marans and Spreckelmeyer, 1982). The norms used are, in some ways, personal expectations. Familiarity with the environment, past experiences associated with it, social or symbolic value attributed to its characteristics, as well as their functional status, are all variables that help define evaluation norms. In the evaluation process, these variables are present to different degrees and for various reasons, producing a whole range of subjective responses and thus modulating the level of satisfaction produced by the environment. A first group of intermediary variables is made up of personal characteristics (Marans and Spreckelmeyer, 1982; Gerngross-Haas, 1982). They include type of work station, type of work, in particular its complexity, status satisfaction, and also organizational role. Locus of control and personal dispositions or feelings with regard to one's sphere of work are other variables that play a role in environmental evaluation (Sundstrom, 1986; Marans and Spreckelmeyer, 1982). The organizational context may also influence the evaluation process. The organization's goals, activities, climate, and the nature of management-employee relations seem to have an impact on the degree of satisfaction with the environment (Marans and Spreckelmeyer, 1982). Lastly, "objective" environmental characteristics also influence the evaluation of an environment, mainly through the symbols they evoke, through their intrinsic meaning, through the qualities attributed to them, and through the functions they fulfill. Marans and Spreckelmeyer (1982) propose a conceptual model that explains the process of work environment evaluation (fig. 10). For them, "architectural privacy" and amount of floor space are two characteristics that affect satisfaction with the environment. In an effort to define attitudes adopted with reference to space by people working in open plan offices, Hedge (1982) analyzed seven principal components: privacy and distractions, health (somatic symptoms), temperature and air movement, office equipment available and facilities to organize

Chapter 2: Perception of Workspace

101

workspace (storage space and constraints), job characteristics (complexity, concentration and stimulation), furnishings (comfort and satisfaction), routes (presence of well-defined corridors around the offices, and intrusion into work area). It was found that 75 per cent of the people working in open plan space adopt their attitudes according to these components. Hedge (1982) also observed that people carrying out complex, demanding, satisfying tasks had a tendency to be more sensitive to their work environment and to express dissatisfaction when environmental conditions did not meet their expectations. Being able to privatize one's space, and being able to work without the distraction of people coming and going and of background noise is a major preoccupation of people working in open plan areas. The environment is perceived as an instrument that helps one to satisfy these needs if it makes procuring architectural privacy possible, that is, if it allows one to erect visual or acoustic barriers. These different studies taken together show that the process of environmental evaluation is directly linked to different attitudes that make it possible to establish the degree of satisfaction that such and such an environment induces.

2 The Semantic Structure of Space The poets have taught us that space has a soul; the humanities have tried to explore this dimension and grasp its meaning. Among the various methods used by the humanities, the semantic differential technique (Osgood, Suci and Tannebaum, 1967) measures the meaning that the environment has for those that perceive and use it; it is thus an objective measure of a subjective relation to space. We used this method to try and understand the meaning that members of a small company attribute to the various spaces that they work in. The main question was to find out if perception of a given environment was permeated with specific signification and whether this was independent of the respondent's work category.

2.1 Method The company is specialized in assembling, repairing and selling household appliances. Approximately fifty people work there, separated into two large sectors of activity: the administration (12 people) and the workshop (40 people). The administration regroups the accounting, sales, and commercial departments. The technical sector includes the assembly and repair workshop. The personnel is made up mainly of the men in the workshops (88 per cent); all of the women work as office employees (12 per cent).

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

102

?*i (

Ft 5 >

1

h

c Ο «=

-1.9 "55 E t>

s*

w W —> tn 'S CO

W

W

°P

0

1

* ^

^^

i ή

i

5

i

I 1

D

£L

1g

'D : 3 '

S

1

ιr Perception/A ssessments of Objective E rivironmental Characiteristics

f

•

Standards ο Comparison

l>

cn c3 Ϊ1 •i 2 j 1 ck

}r

n )=

Standards of Comparison

A

f^haro •.»orioti/M*

Perception//Assessments of Object ive Job

t

ss-g

t

01

J

£ :1 's o-1n

5" ccJα

18

(U C *5

•III g|| 0) g

tt

ujg

,4 1

103

Chapter 2: Perception of Workspace

work space

work space

WAREHOUSE AND WORKSHOP

office

I toilets

I

offices

offices

toilets

office

FRONT

office

Ο office

CEO's office office

A: appliances on display R: reception desk Figure 11 Company floor plan

The spatial organization is the physical projection of the organization chart. It is made up of two sectors: the administration up front and the workshop in the back (fig. 11). The front part includes a vast reception area that also serves as showroom for the appliances sold by the company. Facing the main entrance, a receptionist greets visitors. Closed offices and administrative personnel are distributed around

104

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

this area. This part of the company is nicely decorated and carpeted without being luxurious. The back part is accessible through a double door next to the reception desk. The workshop is divided into two zones: maintenance and repair and warehousing for spare parts. This area is more drab, more cluttered, but without being dirty. The workers work alone or in teams; the work rhythm is punctuated by two breaks at fixed times. At break time, the technicians come up front to an area near the reception desk where there is a beverage vending machine. For the administrative personnel there are no programmed breaks but the employees are free to stop for a drink when they like. Thus, it is only at break time that the workshop staff comes into the front part of the company. Encounters between the different categories of personnel are thus relatively few. Management themselves perceived this separation between "those up front" and "those in back" and wanted to facilitate exchange by organizing various activities, but the workers generally did not participate in them. The semantic differential technique was used with 22 people in the workshop (in the back) and in the administration (up front). In order to preserve anonymity, the only identification used was the person's category (administrative or technical): 7 subjects belonged to the administrative staff and 15 were technical personnel. Let us remember7 that the semantic differential technique is a method using a scale of bipolar, independent adjectives on which individuals rate a concept. It brings out differentiated judgments that reflect an emotional evaluation or judgments that are the result of an emotional response. The semantic differential is made up of 23 scales of adjectives, each one graduated in descending order, from one extremity towards the other. The value of the graduations represents the psychological weight of the adjective. The central point (4) means neutrality or no opinion on a scale. The farther away the rating is from the central point, the greater the psychological weight of the adjective. Each group was invited to first evaluate its own workspace and then that of the other group. The goal of this procedure was to measure differences in perception of office space and of work shop space (fig. 12 and fig. 13).

2.2 Results and Discussion 2.2.1 Global Results It appears that there is a significant difference in the way the workshop and the offices are perceived on 13 of the 23 scales. The greatest difference was obtained on the "cluttered/uncluttered" scale and the smallest on the "unhealthy/healthy" scale. Fischer, G.N. (1980). Espace industriel et liberte. 175-181.

105

Chapter 2: Perception of Workspace

\

Χ"V

τί ο

y

I-£ Iο. ο Ε 01

S

_0 '.4-t

G* U

Κ

£

£ :!

{ rJ 3

3

£ι

ri

·»

CO

r·^

1 00

o c

Ο

Ό

T3

Ο

>

O>

C\i

CO

TT

If)

CO ^

0

a

CJ

00

§ ™

Λ

ν

\χ
45 feet) medium distance (15 to 45 ft.) short distance (< 15 feet) out of the department from one station to another near own work station towards the center towards the periphery • Positive reply for an actual movement. Characteristic observed. - Positive reply for a planned movement. Characteristic programmed. D Negative reply. Characteristic not programmed and never observed.

clothing, even if they could have remained seated to take it; and, some women even go to the next department, on their own initiative, to look for missing material instead of asking the foreperson to get it. This mobility power play is one indicator of real spatial dominance. Mobility for non-functional reasons is not directly linked to work. This type of mobility takes place more often than authorized and is, above all, extremely varied. Although it is difficult to deduce any constants, we have nevertheless been able to observe that the women usually move along the central corridor towards the cafeteria. On the contrary, men have more choices of destination and move around everywhere. We noted that the women privileged two styles of mobility. Those working in peripheral positions have a relatively great deal of mobility during breaks, but do not, however, go to other departments. Those that work in the center have much less mobility, not only when working but also during breaks: they are only familiar with their own department, social space, and part of the stock area. We were not able to establish a relation between mobility and length of time in the company; but, however, potential or real mo-

Chapter 3: Appropriation of Workspace

127

bility seems closely related to the work station: more theoretical mobility for purely professional reasons seems to mean more real mobility for reasons that are not professional. For the workers, this limited use of space, from a functional point of view, means that they know little of the company, little of its complexity, and little of its production process. Consequently, they situate themselves poorly with respect to the whole company. However a comparative study of planned mobility and real mobility shows that the women, nevertheless, are not passive: they partially make up for their handicap by getting around discipline using clandestine systems of appropriation.

3.5 Communication The communication network is another element that indicates the type of appropriation. During work hours, communication is often made difficult by the distance between work stations, the strict supervision of the forepersons, and also by the fact that communication is often defined as being unnecessary, bad for work, or even dangerous and forbidden. It is especially during the breaks that we observed communication used as an appropriation strategy. During breaks, exchanges can be more informal and more personal, thus, less functional. For half the women in the clothing factory, it is the group territory appropriated during breaks that is their privileged place for interpersonal communication. Communication acts indicate that being well integrated in a group means occupying the same territory. Thus, during breaks, communication functions in a way as an appropriation code for a spatial area, in the sense that that free expression becomes possible through the group gathering together. In any workspace, communication is closely linked to environmental design but the women as well as the men never conform completely to what has been planned; they develop parallel communication networks; they continually thwart supervision to create other communication opportunities that gives a different value to the daily work routine.

4 Appropriation and Design Now that we have seen the principle ways in which appropriation expresses itself, another aspect needs to be investigated: the link between environmental design (the configuration of physical space, location of work stations, type of equipment, etc.) and appropriation mechanisms. This will help us to understand the psycho-

128

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

logical impact of design. To say this in another way, what is the nature of the influence exerted on behavior by the physical aspects of the environment? The existing studies mainly deal with offices, especially with open plan and landscape offices. Thus open space, which has the effect of imposing visibility, gives rise, in a certain number of cases, to staged behavior and stress, linked to the feeling of being constantly supervised. If we take into consideration the foregoing observations, designing offices in open areas is a system of "disappropriation" whose stress component, for example, shows the difficulty of nesting, as mentioned above. Moreover, in other cases, doing away with partitions may cause symbolic boundaries to be created with various artifices whose role is to establish invisible walls that protect one from permanent exposure. These findings thus seem to show that when employees feel it is impossible to privatize a open plan work environment, they manifest different behaviors that can be interpreted as symptoms of dissatisfaction. Findings already established fifteen years ago by the BOSTI (1981) and based on an investigation of employee preferences concerning type of office design (open office, semi-open office, closed office) showed that a majority of employees expressed two preferences: a preference for an office with floor to ceiling partitions and a preference for a door that could be closed. These findings were confirmed by other findings and show that landscape office design is not, in the eyes of employees, a system that has the characteristics of space that can be appropriated. Marans and Spreckelmeyer's (1982) study also confirms this. Fourteen American government branches with three types of offices (closed, semi-open and open) were investigated. For all of the variables taken into account (how the work station was perceived, storage capacity, privacy factors, etc.), the employee evaluation order was always the same: the open office was always evaluated more negatively than the closed office. In view of these findings, it would seem that the optimum and most satisfying appropriation is associated with a type of environmental design that provides the individual with space that can, to some degree, be closed off to give privacy. All of these findings are also interesting for another reason: if we compare these findings with the type of office design recommended and developed for almost twenty years now as being "the best," we must acknowledge a gap and even a contradiction between employee preferences concerning their workspace and environmental designs that ignore these preferences and only take into account economic criteria (space cost), organizational criteria (work logic), or architectural criteria (design style), all of which more or less ignore the appropriation dimension. Certain investigations look at design influence from another angle. Appropriation factors were identified in two distinctly different types of environmental design. The question asked was: are there space lay-outs that can be more easily appropriated than others and what are the effects on job satisfaction and productivity. In one study, a group of typists, working with word processors, was asked to work for six weeks in an environment where, on one side, there was convention-

Chapter 3: Appropriation of Workspace

129

al, non-adjustable, non-mobile furniture, and, on the other side, adaptable equipment including a work table where screen and keyboard height could be adjusted, an ergonomically designed chair, mobile lighting, etc. (Paznik, 1986). The typists worked one day in one type of lay-out, the next day in the other. The effects of the two types of spatial lay-out were evaluated with respect to activity. The findings showed that when the typists were in a space with adaptable equipment, on the one hand, they felt more comfortable, and, on the other hand, they were more productive, especially when typing text. The conclusion that can be drawn from this experiment is that when work equipment lends itself to individual control and adaptation, job satisfaction is higher and this, in turn, helps increase productivity. The value of this type of study is to show that design has a psychosocial impact on appropriation. This impact is both the result of the material characteristics of a space, and of the conditions, that through these characteristics, make privatization not only possible, but more or less satisfying. In other terms, in a design where appropriation is impossible, or felt to be impossible, employees may, of course, reach the requested level of productivity but there seems to be little job satisfaction; on the other hand, a work environment designed and organized to be appropriated, has a tendency to be used and experienced in a more satisfying way. These findings show appropriation factors as being a psychosocial indicator of design impact. In this sense, degree of appropriation points to a relation between the qualities attributed to a space and the types of employee reactions to these attributes. In other terms, the fact of appropriating or not appropriating a space depends on how individuals evaluate the qualities they attribute to the environment they work in. We thus have here a process that is determined by the individual and social signification ascribed to workspace. Two determining factors of appropriation can be deduced from all these studies: firstly, the design characteristics and the type of personal workspace, and, secondly, the type of organizational functioning and the way it is evaluated. The design system as well as the size and type of space occupied are indicators of an individual's activity and rank in the hierarchy of the organization. Under these conditions, appropriation seems to be determined by status, office location, including the social symbolic associated with it, and the nature of the work carried out. Consequently, the variables linked to work itself and those linked to environmental characteristics are related and must both be taken into account by the study of appropriation mechanisms. As seen through all these indicators, appropriation designates a type of behavior that expresses the construction of personal space, but which also reveals a battle for bigger stakes, preservation of autonomy in a system that tends to ignore or deny it. Appropriation thus plays a role in the evaluation of workspace to the extent that space is perceived as being more or less governed by work rules. Appropriation phenomena as such do not effect productivity directly but do have a secondary effect. They are, first of all, symptoms that reveal the "disappropriation" caused by spatial lay-outs that are neither conceived nor perceived

130

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

as space that can be appropriated. Appropriation is the result of the social attitude that, in the case of landscape offices, for example, reveals values that are contrary to those expressed in the physical environment. When employees are asked to choose, in a majority of cases, they choose closed offices. But, however, landscape offices continue to be imposed as the best design; and people wonder at the results that show the negative effects of doing away with privacy. Research has, however, established a link between appropriation and job satisfaction when office equipment and office design are functionally adaptable, which is to say, when an individual can rearrange and adjust his or her environment. In other terms, appropriation is a satisfaction factor when the environment is perceived as potentially adaptable.

5 Interpreting Uses of Space To better understand the appropriation practices that are a part of work life, they must be situated with respect to all the other phenomena that play a role in the professional framework. They, first of all, do away with the dominant image that defines work exclusively as a place of submission and constraint; in reality, it is also a place where one puts down roots, and where, by constantly reappropriating time, space and objects, one creates a territory that is livable and provides freedom. Appropriation practices also show that any organization is an environment where two fundamentally different methods of conceiving and carrying out work are in opposition: the logical method of theoretical knowledge and the empirical method of experience. How do these two modes co-exist, how much tolerance of the practices described above can an organization support? We will propose three interpretations to answer these questions and to try to understand the psychosocial aspect of these phenomena: place attachment, clandestine self-management, and constant re-appropriation.

5.1 Place Attachment Appropriation shows, first of all, that an individual is attached to his or her place. This does not necessarily mean they like their work, but, rather, that they have a living relationship with their workspace. Two essential modes of attachment may be noted: adaptation and control over little events. Adaptation corresponds to all forms of work rule accommodation that buffer time-space rigidity. It is mainly lived at an individual level because activity is modulated with respect to body economy. It is with respect to the work content, often neither suitable nor adapted to elementary body movement, that each indi-

Chapter 3: Appropriation of Workspace

131

vidual makes changes that provide more physical comfort and also more symbolic satisfaction because of the challenge of circumventing work rhythm and control. This phenomenon is, however, not pure reaction, it is the expression of the tension which is directly caused by the "weight" work puts on the human organism, what ergonomists call the physical and mental work load. This adaptation, however, plays the role of defense system; it creates a sort of self-control and expresses itself in various ways. Firstly, relations with the people around one are means of surviving monotonous days in the office or the workshop. More limited attitudes of resistance define place attachment: this is behavior that is more impulsive than calculated and shows how an individual fights imposed systems and rigid norms. It is an invisible force that makes its way unseen. It breaks an organization's rigidity, and allows the creation of fragile autonomy zones where individuals mark their place. Resistance is thus a complex form of adaptation. Work sociology brought to light the fact that the individual was objectively dispossessed of what they did, making them a stranger to their activity. However this approach neglects a hidden dimension of human behavior, the fight against negation. Place attachment reveals the meaning of this dimension. It is both refuge and transgression: a refuge that permits escape from organizational logic and a transgression through which an individual manifests this attachment. A specific aspect of this phenomenon has been observed in the numerous behaviors that to some degree circumvent constraint. Multiple strategies are developed to stealthily gain time and space for oneself. In certain cases, workspace is organized into a genuine shield against hierarchical intrusion, and the arrival of a superior sets off an elaborate alarm system to protect territory (Goffman, 1973). In other cases, these circumventing behaviors may be more specific. Dejours (1993) observed, in some companies, a reluctance to wear protection equipment (gloves, glasses) and interpreted this as circumventing behavior having for role the creation of a kind of consensus in the face of danger. It is as though there were a need to avoid thinking too much about environmental danger. A sort of complicity develops among group members and this gives rise to games that catalyze fear. In certain workshops where toxic products are manipulated, someone may start a rumor that a new risk has been discovered, to provoke the invention of more circumventing behaviors which are a way of symbolically domesticating danger. These behaviors help us to understand the relative inefficiency of certain security campaigns. These campaigns put too much emphasis on risks that work groups do not want to be too aware of, and that they, in a way, exorcise by ignoring them. As we see from these various behaviors, workplace attachment is a kind of ambivalent reality. The fact that it expresses resistance in no way means that people do not like their jobs; on the contrary, through ruse, they are able to reserve for themselves areas that they can control. A second characteristic of place attachment is the way in which it expresses itself. It almost always manifests itself with respect to small things and this shows the value of micro-psychological processes in appropriation.

132

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

Individuals, thus, arrange their environment as they want, but without being too obvious about it. They move around to show their knowledge of territory, but without disrupting work too much. Appropriation, by definition, is mostly made up of these little, relatively harmless interventions. To the extent that these are daily micro-events, they are able to survive because of various tolerances. Their existence shows that as long as certain behaviors stay below a certain threshold, they escape from social control and organizations hardly notice or bother about them. This also shows that individuals never let themselves be completely imprisoned in the functional determinism of their work, which, in a way, is trying to make them transparent. They arrange situations so that they can, through numerous micro-appropriations, claim space of their own in the theoretically impersonal environment of their work station. As a micro-psychological phenomenon, appropriation shows that the usual manner of modifying situations is to introduce an innovation small enough not to perturb the existing equilibrium. In other terms, place attachment reveals that our habitual relation to events is to avoid crossing a certain conflict threshold. Each one creates, in this way, a fragile feeling of satisfaction that helps one to support constraints if they can be subverted without making trouble. To sum up, the concept of place attachment shows that an individual takes the shape of the mold they are put in, but, at the same time, changes the shape of the mold.

5.2 Clandestine Self-Management The dialectic nature of the social relation to workspace may be interpreted at another level as the expression of clandestine self-management. This is a fundamental element of professional behavior that is made up of a set of practices that modify work as it is officially defined. In a certain way, we might say that an individual, from his or her work station, manages a part of the company, but they do this on a different basis than that which is stipulated or imposed. Clandestine selfmanagement thus includes the multiple empirical adaptations that improve work as well as various strategies to get around the system's rigidity. It is therefore a conflictive regulation of an organization by the introduction of a kind of informal, often secret, contribution to the smooth functioning of the company. It has two main characteristics. First of all, parallel inventions show that individuals make the corrections they think are necessary to be able to carry out their work under good conditions. This is a psychological investment in their activity they are willing to make, to the extent that it may become a clandestine norm of efficiency. It is in this double movement of objective dispossession and of inventiveness that the process of appropriation should be situated in order to understand the phenomenon of clandestine self-management. In a certain way it represents the hidden side of scientific management; this type of space creates a process that roots out everything that is not

Chapter 3: Appropriation of Workspace

133

useful and everything that seems "baroque" to functionalism. This will to purge work is close to a normative vision that defines a true activity by determining one unique, correct, calculated way of carrying it out. In actual reality, relation to work is characterized by its great diversity: any task, as standardized as it might be, is carried out by each individual with a unique personal set of elements. Such diversity bears witness to the permanent and indomitable personalization that any imposed standardization of behavior has to contend with. This is not a secondary aspect, but rather an intuitive adaptation, a necessary correction of the process's rigidity. This self-management also shows that, in the last resort, an individual is always alone with their work: he or she must organize themselves to cope with the system's rigidity. This is often reflected by an arrangement of the task that never corresponds to the official one because it represents the individual's empirical working knowledge. This knowledge is gained through constant learning that always re-decodes environment with respect to what one is doing. A second characteristic of the clandestine self-management process resides in the fact that its very existence necessitates a certain invisibility; to be able to last, it must be almost forgotten. It is as though, in the way of the subconscious, it were careful not to let itself be noticed; this is an essential condition for its survival. In such a perception of social phenomena, clandestine self-management is an awkward effort to recapture an autonomy that is trying to adapt. Companies that rely more and more on technological installations have come to identify themselves with these perfectly reliable, controllable, adjustable, profitable systems. The workshop or the office submit their members to ever more demanding rationality as machines, circuits, and material become more and more sophisticated, sensitive and interdependent. The incidents and accidents that occur suggest, however, that social life is not a mechanical system, but the living result of the people that create them, and, thus, unforeseeable and fragile. Clandestine self-management is a way of questioning the role of humans in these systems where everything is said to be indispensable. It is not just a type of insubordination; it helps an individual to confront unplanned situations, to compensate for the organization's procrastination, and to keep close to others in spite of the mechanization of relationships. Resisting this escalation of control measures are elaborated systems of alibis, usually known to the organization, which ignores or pretends to ignore them. In sum, clandestine self-management is like a refuge and creates as many sub-cultures, know-hows, and exchanges of information as necessary to allow an individual to maintain some control over a situation. It gives rise to a kind of new geography of power in the work environment. In any workspace, as we have seen, individuals create encounter or exchange zones for themselves. These are communication networks, but, also, at the same time, strategic points, usually free from control. Clandestine self-management forms a system that accounts for the resistance phenomena that, taken together, represent a structure of defense against work organization. Their importance expresses the value of appropriation as being so many personalization factors used by

134

Part Three The Psychosocial Dynamics of Workspace

each individual in their own workspace to defend themselves against the effects of parceling out inherent in work. This is the reason why appropriation processes have made it possible to take into account professional experience anchored in traditions and habits that create a system of representation that becomes a style of life at work. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that such phenomena only express themselves in a subdued way in new companies. Without any common past, individuals have no traditions at first. This also explains why there are globally fewer appropriation practices in these companies. The environment has to have a minimum of use so that habits can be formed, so that a certain regularity can establish itself, so that the space becomes familiar.

5.3 Constant Re-appropriation If we analyze these phenomena within the framework of technological change, we can formulate a third interpretation: information, by modifying the work system, causes individuals and groups to develop new appropriation strategies. Automation, continuous flow and machine-controlled production, and new office technology illustrate a new logic where all of the phases are coordinated and interdependent, and where personal appropriation of space is, by definition, more and more excluded. In reality, computer systems still have the benefit of being thought of as unrelenting and perfect. Methodically eliminating errors, play, and transgressions is a dream that actual functioning forbids. Faced with new equipment, human, do-it-yourself, expedients have an immense field to express themselves in: lags in transmitting, processing and recovering information, microbreak downs, repeated intervention are all fields that show that nothing is inexorable. The concept of re-appropriation can, in these conditions, be thought of as a game against the inexorable. Obliged to adopt new procedures that exclude their previous know-how and impose other knowledge, individuals find themselves in a temporary state of dispossession. When this rupture occurs they mobilize themselves to avoid being excluded themselves. New technology creates, in this respect, a potential area for re-appropriation. We saw that, in certain companies, the introduction of new equipment forced each person to re-evaluate what they did and what they believed in order to know how to act and to find new answers. States of change help to unveil the rigidity of certain conditionings and to interpret their impact. This relative dislocation of previous structures provokes a kind of sorting out through which individuals reconstruct new ways of adapting. This capacity for new learning shows above all that human plasticity is capable of finding new outlets through original ways of appropriating new tools. This shows that reality is never completely defined ahead of time: it depends on one's capacity to loosen one's ties with past experience in previous work situations. With the introduction

Chapter 3: Appropriation of Workspace

135

of new technology, individuals, caught up in change, are, in a way, obliged to shed their past know-how, incorporating some of it in the new process they are a part of. This transfer of know-how is defined partly as a loss. Automated systems reveal a new aspect of appropriation: individuals are, in many respects, excluded from direct intervention in the process, but, at the same time, sporadic signs of "nesting" indicate commitment to their work. The appropriation process is, as we have seen, one of the meaningful aspects of the person-environment relationship. Space is both a place of constraint and of freedom. Appropriation, thus, defines itself as a conflictive humanization process: an unyielding zone that can never be entirely conquered and that always more or less disturbs the supposedly rational organizational system. Appropriation shows that an individual can never be completely defined by the situation imposed on them. He or she buffers the weight of constraints depending on the possibility they have to make personal choices in an impersonal environment. It underlines that fact that the social work process only takes on meaning if behavior reincorporates the possibility of a real control through which each person can experiment selfmanagement in an environment that, in appearance, is already completely managed for them. Appropriation, seen from this angle, takes on ultimate meaning: it is the expression of possible intervention on constraining reality, a partial reconstruction of the self, crushed by scientific management.

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

Part four of this book tries to answer the questions brought up by the preceding elements of analysis. It looks first at models and design approaches and then proposes possible applications of these based on the dynamics of person/environment interaction. Environmental psychology considers the act of designing space as a way of creating environments; it does not fundamentally take position on the technical characteristics of a construction, nor on the choice of materials, but rather on the qualities that individuals attribute to it. It is in this sense that space is seen as a resource, as social material used, by both designer-managers and employees, according to criteria that attribute clearly defined values to it. We will first present several models that underlie design practices and then analyze experiments that have emphasized various characteristics of space.

Chapter 1: Models Workspace, as we have seen, is the object of new attitudes and new representations. It is no longer considered as a simple exterior framework but as one of the components of social functioning. The question of how space should be used gives rise to paradoxical positions. On one hand, the conception of environmental design continues to draw on models that more or less ignore these tendencies; an example of this is an architectural program that simply furnishes an architectural configuration without trying to adapt it to the characteristics and needs of a given activity. On the other hand, we see forms of reasoning that only see environmental elements as means of positively or negatively reinforcing behavior tendencies. In this case, a cause/effect relation is seen between the physical environment and behavior, and, for example, open plan offices are seen as the answer to organizational goals of increasing productivity. Space is thus clearly recognized as a resource. It is important to situate the main principles that guide different types of approaches and emphasize a spatial dimension or a specific spatial value as being a resource. We will look at four orientations that have imposed themselves as reference models: - architectural factionalism, which seeks to establish the best relation possible between organizational needs and environmental functions; - workspace ergonomics, which concerns itself with organizing work stations to facilitate adaptation to the new equipment that accompanies new forms of work; - environmental competence, which sees environmental design in terms of an individual's capacity to intervene in the environment and modify it according to his or her needs; - social intervention, which sees a spatial design project as a process of change in the organization itself.

1 Architectural Functionalism We will introduce this orientation along two different axes: the first based on research that shows architectural determinism, and the second based on the functional principles of architectural conception.

140

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

1.1 Research on Architectural Determinism Considered as an organizational resource, space is first seen here through the influence it exerts on work and on individuals. It can thus be planned and arranged in a way that encourages work efficiency, improves productivity, and improves the climate of the organization (Steele and Jenks, 1977; Sundstrom, 1986). In every case, it has an impact on job behavior: material layout (entry, wall, corridor) imposes constraints and partially determines social relations. Components of space, in terms of semi-fixed elements, also make the regulation of social interaction possible (Davis, 1984). From this perspective, a building, through its architecture, its design, and its site, may be considered to influence cohesion and communication in work groups. Space can therefore become an important element in organizational strategy, in as much as its physical characteristics and components directly reflect its goals (Seiler, 1984). A type of design can, for example, be identified with a network of relationships, which is to say, with all of the structures that restrict or facilitate movement, encourage or discourage communication (Goodrich, 1979; Wineman, 1982). Seiler (1984) goes so far as to say that the topology of a spatial design can transform a set of separate units into an interdependent group. According to him, it is possible to list interaction problems and solve them by transforming the structure of a space; changing a configuration would thus seem to facilitate and improve relations between people working on interdependent tasks. For Moleski and Lang (1982), an organization, as such, can be represented by a system of activity sites, in which specific tasks are carried out and specific functions fulfilled. These activity sites can be classed by behavior pattern frequency, socio-physical performance, and physical structure. By parceling work and defining functions, an organization divides itself into several functional sub-systems by assigning a work place to each person. To fulfill their goals, these sub-systems must be integrated, which is to say linked by communication, transport, and material and influence exchange mechanisms. Consequently, the organizational environment can be represented as a constellation of activity sites, integrated into the organization through a variety of networks. The nature and form of the links that unite them depend on the nature of the tasks. These links may be of many different types: formal or informal communication networks; functional links to assure the transfer of work, material and documents; spontaneous collaboration between two or several groups at different sites to solve a common problem; status given by the organization to one of its activity sites; power networks generated by activity hierarchy and compatibility. In this type of approach, the interdependence of the sub-systems forms the criterion for deciding their location in space; but, to be more precise, it is desirable to place groups that must constantly exchange work, material, or documents near each other, in order to facilitate these different transactions. Along the same lines, the status of a work group increases if it is located near a decision center, because

Chapter 1: Models

141

its members share this identity and benefit from the prestige linked to the sphere of power. In this approach, organizational space defines itself as a system of activity sites where behaviors associated with the design structure develop. These behaviors play on elements in the spatial configuration in order to integrate this configuration. Other approaches insist less on the "impact" physical arrangements have on behavior, but, however, point out correspondence between behavior and environment to the extent that, in various situations, environment furnishes a behavior model. Michelson (1970) defined this correspondence in terms of congruency between systems. There thus seems to exist a person/environment adequacy when the characteristics of organizational structure and environmental properties correspond (Michelson, 1977). This implies, on one hand, that the degree of physical spatial differentiation is an indicator of a function's specialization, and, on the other hand, that the degree of proximity is an indicator of the necessary degree of collaboration among several functions. This correspondence brings clearly to light the organizational use of environment to influence individuals' behavior at work. For Goodrich (1979), the design of a building influences interpersonal communication, the nature of social interaction, the frequency and quality of these interactions and also the perception of privacy. Drawing on the socio-technical approach, he puts forward a model in which organizational space is an important variable affecting work behavior and employee satisfaction. This model shows that space can take on many forms and be perceived differently depending on the organizational variables present. Wineman (1982) confirms these findings. The structure of space, defined by the location of walls, partitions, furniture and other physical and psychological barriers has an influence on group cohesion and on their relations. However, strong previous cohesion to a given spatial design, as well as strong job motivation, can minimize the negative effects produced by an inadequate environment. In these approaches, space is indeed seen as a resource, but it functions in a deterministic, quasi automatic manner. In Sundstrom's (1986) work we find the expression "architectural determinism" used explicitly; he speaks in this way of the architectural determinism of social relations to define the physical factors that condition the nature and the frequency of interactions in an organization. The factors that favor interactions can be proximity of workspaces, their accessibility, and availability of meeting areas. The reasoning followed by these authors is founded on the group formation model (Romans, 1950). This model postulates the existence of relationships between three components: interaction, activity, and feeling. Activity, for example, a job, can bring individuals to interact (communicate with each other) and to develop common feelings (values and attitudes). Interaction can provoke feelings (liking for group work) and encourage group activity (spontaneous collaboration) to solve problems. According to Sundstrom (1986), workspace proximity favors the formation and the development of groups

142

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

because it increases interaction possibilities and chances of developing affective ties with others. Physical distance seems to produce negative effects on persons who are supposed to work together, or at least to consult each other. Parsons (1976) points out that an individual is less likely to go to see someone on another floor than they are to go to see someone on their own floor because of the effort necessary to climb or descend stairs or of having to wait for the elevator. Conrath (1973) notes that face to face interactions between colleagues seem to be determined more by spatial arrangement and physical proximity than by task requirements or hierarchical relations. In this respect, physical distance intervenes as an interpretation and a reinforcement of social distance. Kotier (1983) remarked that administrators and employees spontaneously accepted unscheduled exchanges if their offices were near to each other. Leibson (1981) observed that engineers' culture incited them to exchange ideas on a one to one basis rather than in groups. He noted that they are hesitant to walk long distances and that they dislike using the telephone. In such a case, proximity seems to be a factor that facilitates exchange and encounters. According to Davis (1984), the location of an office can have an impact on the type of information an individual receives and on integration in or exclusion from organizational events. This variable may stimulate interaction and develop cooperative work relations. And finally, it may offer the user strategic advantages, such as being near to or far from the boss and/or having access to space others do not have access to. Davis also mentions that interpersonal relations have a tendency to be more intimate in small buildings than in big ones. Elements that control accessibility to space (physical enclosure, psychological barriers, screens) are considered to be another determining factor in interpersonal relations. Sundstrom (1986) shows that, for group work, physical enclosure of space is considered to facilitate the development of group cohesion. By delimiting a zone, physical barriers bring its occupants to see themselves as part of the same group. By limiting the possibilities for interaction with those in neighboring zones, this cohesion can become a group feeling of differentiation between "them" and "us." And finally, enclosure gives privacy to the group through control of access to its own space and of information that facilitates the autonomy the group requires, and the development of its own norms. The disposition of a certain number of semi-fixed elements has also been analyzed and interpreted as a means of action and influence on social relations. These systems of action are of various types: furniture arrangement, in particular, the location and orientation of the desk, may be a way of creating or eliminating psychological barriers, depending on the type of work and the type of relations (Davis, 1984). These barriers can influence the behavior of those who enter a given environment. Along the same line, Bobelle and Buchanan (1979) suggest that equipment and furniture be used to differentiate the environments of groups that share a same space.

Chapter 1: Models

143

These different approaches show the importance of spatial determination based on fairly strict correspondence between spatial lay-outs and work efficiency.

1.2 The Functional Principles of Architectural Conception This second axis will make it possible to bring to light several principles that underlie this functional conception; they concern either exterior physical design or interior design.

1.2.1 Exterior Design The exterior design of space is considered as being an envelope or clothing; work is the object of a spatial concept that is based on several criteria, especially on the standardization of space and on organizational identity. - Standardization of space Standardization is based both on architectural requirements for standardized construction elements, and on a conception of the interior morphology. It is thus associated with either repetition of elements, or with non differentiation of interior space. It refers simultaneously to two interpretations: a standardized but functionally defined building, or a shell with multiple possible uses. This organizational principal provides maximum flexibility in work station layout and furnishes a shelter in which all floor space is equally useful. Standardized space implies the concept of modules: each module has the same functional and spatial properties as the others which facilitates the manipulation of workspace. We end up with a rationalization of the production process that emphasizes the idea of flow, and, consequently, work station flexibility. This leads to a rigid parceling out of space. - Organizational identity A building, as we have already pointed out, is an image of its organization. Architecture must thus help to enhance the value of a company's activity, personnel, and products. Exterior design, through conception of the building fagade and size, is a factor of the organization which gives it an identity, and a sign of its excellence.

1.2.2 Interior Design This approach is based on a conception of workspace starting from the interior, by, for example, looking for a better way of fitting several spatial units together. Spe-

144

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

cial attention is paid to the integration of certain places (locker room, rest rooms, restaurant) because architecture is considered as a tool that, among other things, should lead to better company functioning. It is by looking at these elements in particular that one can grasp the importance of esthetics and style in interior design. At the start, it was a question of answering two types of distinct concerns: making workspace more pleasant and, through this, increasing performance and, on the other hand, developing health and security. In both cases interior design is seen as functional. Today, this concern is part of a wider approach. As an organization is now considered, much more than in the past, as a living environment, esthetics are introduced as a motivating factor to create and reinforce an attitude of belonging and of attachment to the company.

2 Workspace Ergonomics The evolution of work, with the development of new technologies, makes it necessary to find a new adequacy between equipment and tasks. The accent is put on the importance of ergonomics as a model of workspace intervention and design. Production automation and the computerization of office work produce tools that are more and more efficient and more and more sophisticated and require new professional profiles and new adaptation. In this context, ergonomics comes into play to establish congruency between work station and environment. It is thus associated with the effort to optimize tools and has the goal of adding comfort, satisfaction, and efficiency. The rigid relation between space and traditional work organization is disappearing. The negative value of visual control tends to be less strong in work situations where computerized equipment is mainly used than in traditional office situations. Ergonomics is thus faced with stakes related to computerization and the associated disappearance of the rigid link between work organization and space. Ergonomics does not only involve corrective intervention in the symptoms associated with the introduction and use of computers in offices, but more and more, it involves ergonomic conception by suggesting both an integrated adaptation of equipment and a better use of space. Ergonomics is a new body of knowledge whose use is not without ambiguity as it is proposed as a "scientific" solution that makes it possible to create a healthy environment by eliminating all the harmful effects introduced by technological evolution. In this context, ergonomic intervention is included in the measures to be taken to create comfort in a pleasant, friendly setting in order to attenuate, in a certain way, all of the anxiety and insecurity that go with computerization. Ergonomics,

Chapter 1: Models

145

where space is concerned, is thus part of the search for a new value of correction and cohesion in order to determine an environment with qualities of comfort and freedom to compensate for the reticence and fear and, thus, place the individual in an environment where the environmental qualities are a factor of integration. Lastly, we can note that ergonomics essentially came into being in companies where advanced technology gave rise to new workspace and, linked to this, new social categories destined to play a strategic role in the company. Under these conditions, the ergonomic creation of space, comfort, and a warm climate can be interpreted in another way: ergonomics creates factors of stabilization and attachment to the company. Space can thus be used to encourage adhesion and identification. In this way, space ergonomics can contribute to motivation and performance, just as the human relations movement demonstrated the importance of ambient factors in carrying out work.

3 Environmental Competence This model does not try to define physical forms, but looks at space from the point of view of the individual, by showing how they express their ability to recognize the impact of an environmental element and to adapt it to their own objectives. The idea of environmental competence (Steele, 1973) is based on the fact that an individual has personal resources that enable them to intervene in the environment by becoming responsible for it; in this sense space is experienced as a resource in as much as it is part of individual development. Environmental competence designates a behavior potential capable of acting on the environment and establishing a satisfying relation with it. It includes many different actions that make it possible for us to control space, in spite of the fact that we often have the impression of being at the mercy of the constraints it imposes. Environmental competence presupposes that each individual has resources that make it possible for them to intervene in their environment, to find environmental elements that enhance their feeling of well-being at work and, thus, to adapt the environment to the actual socio-technical reality in which they find themselves. Such an affirmation obliges us to reconsider the act of environmental design itself; this can no longer take place without the individuals and groups directly concerned: the "designer-expert" no longer has all the right answers, his or her role is to help individuals to formulate their "environmental competence" and to translate this into a design program. The concept of environmental competence is formalized, in particular, in the work of Steele (1973) and Lauterman (1976). Jutras and Cullen (1983) give a syn-

146

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

thesis of this approach and define it as "a retroactive process characterized both by motivation to efficiently negotiate with environment and by the result of this negotiation." In other words, by modifying an aspect of their environment, an individual develops a more harmonious image of their relation with that environment. In this way, they acquire the ability to modify their environment in accordance with known needs and thus develop a feeling of control over their relation with it. Lauterman introduces this concept of competence in a slightly different way from Steele. He sees it as a dynamic, interactive phenomenon by defining it as the ability of an individual to recognize the environmental elements relevant to their behavior intentions, and, using these, to plan and carry out action they have decided upon themselves, including the possibility of changing the environmental elements. Thus environmental competence can be understood as an interactive system that refers to individuals who are part of a specific environment; it is not an individual's ability as such, but rather their ability restricted or facilitated by space. On this basis, Lauterman lists six individual and environmental characteristics that are essential to this competence: - an optimum degree of stimulation: too little or too much social stimulation diminishes environmental competence; - comprehensible situation elements: spatial, social, and functional organizational aspects must be perceived as unequivocal signs as they are the basis for competence development; - the existence of behavior alternatives: the more possible solutions there are for a given situation, the greater the variety of possible behaviors; - the predictability of situations: confrontation with unforeseen change diminishes internal behavior control, and, as a result, competence in the company; - cognitive and behavioral competence: in a situation, an individual must be able to have cognitive control over its different environmental elements; - interpersonal consensus in defining situations: an individual needs the evaluations of others to validate their own intentions; if there are few validation possibilities, reaction ability is weaker and the degree of competence is thus lower. According to Lauterman, these various elements must be taken into account in any spatial design project, as they make it possible to conceive and create an environment that is optimum, not for each individual, but in the context of an optimum compromise. It is in this way that he poses the problem of the implementation and, as it were, of the experiencing of this competence in an organizational context. For Steele (1973), several conditions must be met to make the development of this competence possible. First, one must identify a whole series of different kinds of opposition that any project whose goal is the development of environmental competence encounters. These antagonistic elements manifest themselves at the level of spatial perception and on the social level. Environmental perception can reveal fatalistic attitudes ("we can't change anything"), or blind confidence ("they take care of solving our problems") that reflect a negative self image.

Chapter 1: Models

147

In other respects, on the social level, we can see various forms of non implication with respect to workspace, and various authors (Steele, 1973; Sommer, 1969) explain this phenomenon of disengagement. To begin with, individuals pursue different goals and different points of view, like disagreements, influence the way space is used. Moreover, relations between managers and employees in an organization give rise to a whole set of norms on how space should be used that define what behavior is acceptable in the different organizational areas. There is thus a territorial behavior that is evaluated as being more or less acceptable by any given group. These elements may hinder the expression of environmental competence. Next, one must implement a process of intervention in environment: not a process that is just a search for the right technical solution, but a process which sees space as a new field of responsibility. There are two principle phases in this implementation. The first phrase may be defined as an evaluation of the qualitative potential of a space. This evaluation, the foundation of any intervention, is based on the study of the essential functions served by an environment. Steele defined six main spatial functions: shelter and security, social contact, symbolic identification, instrumentality with respect to the task, pleasure, and growth. Shelter and security reflect the individual's physiological need for protection against natural outside elements (rain, wind, etc.) as well as a psychological need to control proximate stimuli. Social contact concerns quality of exchange according to quality of space; the type of contact desired may not be in harmony with environmental reality. Social contact may thus be encouraged or not by the actual properties of an environment (furniture arrangement, location of people, possibilities to move around). Symbolic messages are the values and real or supposed advantages conveyed by the environment. Instrumentality with respect to the task is the characteristic of three categories of activities: those where action predominates, those where interaction is the important feature, and those where action is individual or intellectual. Depending on the task category, certain environmental characteristics should be privileged, such as the size and flexibility of workspace, the quality of material used, sensory conditions that hinder or facilitate an activity. Physical qualities inherent in an environment are spatial elements that contribute to the creation of a feeling of satisfaction, but these interfere with an individual's actual experience of an environment and with their psychological state. Personal growth refers to a set of processes that influence an individual's experience, especially those processes that facilitate learning new skills and feeling more self aware. The analysis of these functions is the foundation for an evaluation, in several stages, of environmental potential. The first step in the process of evaluating an environment's functions consists in selecting specific elements of the space that are susceptible of influencing its

148

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

own functioning. They must be specific enough for us to be able to judge their impact on an individual; they may be lighting, wall color, furniture arrangement, etc.. The second step includes a system of questions linked to each of the functions described beforehand. Through these questions we try to discover if an element of the environment facilitates or on the contrary, hinders environmental functioning. For example, we might ask if the walls were thick enough to deaden noise. Environmental evaluation establishes a framework for the analysis of all the physical elements through which intervention in spatial design can express itself and exert influence. It is thus a global indicator of the actual functioning of a work environment and makes it possible to define its global qualitative potential. Using this evaluation, the second phase of implementation can be envisaged: the development of environmental competence as a process of environmental intervention. In this approach, users are considered as privileged information sources. This phase develops in several stages: awareness of needs and goals, selection of components pertinent to the situation, action planning, intervention in the physical environment, evaluation of the modification obtained. These different steps show how workspace can actually be the object of a negotiation process. They also show that it is not only the feeling of control over space that is the goal, but also control over the relation that one establishes with space. Environmental competence appears as a rather complex model of intervention in space. It uses an individual's ability to act on their environment and brings into play a whole set of variables linked to social situations underlain by the environmental potential of each organization.

4 Environmental Design as Social Intervention Contrary to the preceding approaches, environmental design, in this case, is considered as a means of social intervention, that is, as cooperation between the company, seen as a social system with a goal, and an outside agent who suggests approaches and answers. From this perspective, we can consider that there is no one right solution as such, but that the solution is in the social process used to produce it. Spatial design is conceived less from the angle of the technical means used and more with respect to the manner in which it gives rise to such or such a result. It is thus considered that any act of spatial design is an interactive situation in which a privileged place is reserved for the user, defined as an expert, in the sense that the user has an essential type of knowledge. This does not imply simply insuring user "participation" in the final stages of environmental design, but also implies

Chapter 1: Models

149

recognizing the unique role the user plays in the interactive system of architectural intervention. The term of social intervention, which implicitly or explicitly defines certain spatial design models, refers to forms of social practices inspired by Lewin's research and experiments and work done at the Tavistock Institute (Jaques, 1951), which define a conception of the consultant's role, in opposition to the role of expert, that recognizes the role played by a company's members. The treatment of questions pertaining to the environment is thus tackled from two angles. On one hand, the search for an answer to a spatial problem must begin with an analysis of the users' social and material conditions, in as much as they are susceptible to furnish answers pertinent to their situation. On the other hand, it is hypothesized that, by asking the users to talk about their space, forms of expression, negotiation, and proposition are created. These displace the traditional domain of employee demands and also consider user intervention as an element indispensable to the materialization of a project. Environment can thus be considered as an object of social practice that can be treated in the same way as other social objects in an organization, such as communication and working conditions. In this respect, environmental design can be treated using the model of intervention process, articulated, as shown by Dubost (1987), around the following axes: - The organization in which there is a space-linked problem: Lippitt (1958) defines an organization as a client-system that includes several categories: the individual, the group, the organization, the community. This distinction helps us to see that, for example, in a space-linked problem, the person who takes the initiative and chooses the architect is not necessarily the person who is concerned by the problem. - The expectations with reference to the environmental design: depending on the situation, these may concern all of the organization, such as a new building, or only one part, such as a department. Consequently, intervention will benefit one design aspect, for example, space or work organization. Thus, the way the field of intervention is defined and structured is an important variable and influences its evaluation. - The type of work that is going to be carried out within the user/designer framework: What will the users be asked? When will they be consulted? Thus, the type of approach and its efficiency depend on how the organization and the designer define the conditions under which the project will be carried out. - The architect or team of designers are an important aspect: the solution they bring to the problem submitted to them reveals the way they see their own role, as expert, demiurge, or facilitator. An essential detail concerns the position occupied by an outside agent. Although, most of the time, an outside firm is called in, more and more frequently, in big companies, one of their own departments

150

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

handles small, punctual projects. In this case, the approach may, even more clearly, bring to light the tie between organizational functioning and the solutions brought to space-linked problems. The identification of the principal aspects of the intervention process shows how space-related problems can be treated without reducing them to purely technical problems, but by situating them in a practice based on socio-psychological methodology. This model of spatial design refers to intervention practice and shows that the environmental design act is itself situated in a field that is not that of technology nor that of applied science nor that of pure research. It is based on several explicit or implicit hypotheses that we will now briefly introduce. A first hypothesis is based on the relation between spatial organization and social system. It sees workspace both as a condition and a result. In this case, it is the pressure that one exerts on the other and vice versa that is important and forms a system of influence. A second hypothesis sees environmental design as a reflection, or rather, as an analyzer. Physical arrangement constitutes a language in itself about the organization; it delivers a silent message A space-related problem in any given department or work sector may reveal a style of social functioning. Space then becomes a transversal organizational element that reveals unseen habitual mechanisms. In other terms, treatment of space makes it possible to stimulate knowledge that is rarely accessible through conventional paths. A third hypothesis looks at the value of consulting personnel concerning architectural design. As Evette (1984) has shown, this stimulates a sector of employee knowledge which then reinforces expert knowledge with the goal of improving spatial conception. Personnel consultation also is a factor in regulating social relations. In reality, this concept of consultation refers to the general concept of participation which uses extremely diversified expression styles. Arnstein (1969) has defined three categories of expression styles depending on the type of power and real control individuals are given over the final decision: non participation, symbolic participation, and real participation. The first category is defined as an absence of participation. The preoccupations of company members are taken into account with the explicit intention of gaining their support: their pulse is taken in order to adapt the model management has chosen, but individuals are not part of the decision process. The second category is that of symbolic participation. Here, company members are both informed and consulted. They are invited to express their opinions, but, of course, they are not part of the decision process: "They participate in the participation" (Arnstein, 1969). They can make themselves heard and this can, in a certain way, influence decisions. It is at this level that the opinions of experts and architects are no longer seen to be objective opinions based on a kind of technical truth and the subjective presuppositions held by each one are brought to light. Through revealing that the language of experts is not only technical, the participa-

Chapter 1: Models

151

tion process finds itself in a position in which recommended solutions are indissociable from individuals' personal values. As Wynne (1980) emphasized in another context, this not so much direct participation having real influence but rather identification with the social process leading to a decision. This is no longer a one-way situation, however, this type of participation involves no sharing of power: there is discussion but not negotiation. The third category involves real participation; it includes association, power delegation, and direct control. For Arnstein, association exists if groups who do not agree with a decision have the financial means to organize themselves and call on outside competence, and if their opinion is taken into account by the decision makers. This is thus real negotiation and leads to power sharing. Real participation depends on management acceptance of game rules stipulating that spatial design is not a decision they can make alone. This type of participation means that a project decision is negotiable and, to begin with, that information is circulated right at the beginning of the project and not when it is already impossible to change anything. All of these hypotheses insist on the importance of taking psycho-social factors into account in the environmental design process which gives rise to several conceptions that we will briefly describe.

4.1 Spatial Self Planning The process of spatial self planning, elaborated by Friedman (1974) is based on individual ability to intervene in an environmental design project. It postulates that users are the best fitted to take care of their own needs. Under these conditions, the designer is no longer the holder of a ready made solution because the future users are considered as being the most qualified to express the best adapted solutions. If the intervention of an architect is necessary, their role, according to Friedman, is no longer to apply their knowledge, but to put their knowledge at the disposition of the future users. Instead of giving them a ready made project, the architect asks them to establish a draft of the different territories or domains themselves. A certain amount of information about the project must be made available to the users. According to Friedman, spatial self planning can be carried out using three basic elements: individual knowledge, the project itself, and outside knowledge. In this scheme, the expert's role is redefined, not his or her competence. An experience in environmental design thus becomes a community tool based on the ability of each person to shape pieces of space. In particular, such a process makes the personalization of space possible, because it is the user that imagines it, chooses it, and decides how it should be. Friedman conceived a method of environmental design in four steps during an office construction project. The first step consists of defining "territories" for each department. First, department members must establish plans of the desired links between departments, noting priority and exchange frequency. Territories are then distributed in accor-

152

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

dance with the preliminary work that has allowed the different domains to be delimited and cognitively appropriated. During the second step, drafts of space needs, that have been summarily planned with regard to type and number, are submitted to each department and it is the future users that decide on their characteristics and type of personalization. At this point, offices are designated on the draft, not by number, but by the name of the future occupant. The architectural character of the plans elaborated by the different departments reflects an extremely large variety that shows not only the functional character of a space, but, especially, the preference of such and such a department to work in such and such an environment. We can also note that in this experiment, the different spaces taken together were referred to as a village. The third step allows modifications and improvements to be made in the initial project. A draft of all of the offices, on two levels, helped to bring out the complexity of the plan conceived by the future users who had become aware of their ability to control a relatively complex program thanks to the information they had been given on the goal of the project. And finally, the fourth step is that where the final outline of the plan is decided before the construction itself begins. This process shows that an environmental design project can stimulate responsibility for the social functioning of a company. This method proposed by Friedman reveals that, if they are given the opportunity, individuals develop negotiated responsibility that stimulates their desire to participate their organization's future.

4.2 The Architect as Facilitator Another point of view, represented by Duffy (1974), defines architecture as a process of assistance that helps organizations decide what type of space they need. According to him, when conceiving new workspace, it is less important to take care of the details of a construction and more important to understand user desires. An architectural project is thus a privileged opportunity to observe an organization's structure, the forces that ensure its adhesion, or those that lead to its disintegration. From this perspective, the perfecting of a project is qualified as being "polemic" rather than descriptive. In other terms, it is a process that brings to light conflicting interests that must be reconciled. This is done through negotiation that includes the personnel and should lead the users to make decisions directly linked to the design and use of the space under consideration. This approach tries to optimize the relation between group size and spatial unit size, as it is especially on this point that organizations differ from each other. In each case, a group's space needs should be defined and a territory delimited. Consequently, the structure inherent in the size of the group is an important criterion in the choice or specification of the shape of the building. Using this principle, the spatial design project

Chapter 1: Models

153

tries to determine the relations that should be established between the different spatial units. Here again, the type of hierarchical structure and the type of communication structure present in the company play an important role. The implications these two factors have for architecture are extremely clear; an organization that wants to impose and reinforce inside control will have a tendency to design separate physical units that each correspond to a specific subdivision of the company. On the contrary, if it wants to facilitate communication, it will define spaces that are not necessarily partitioned off, but are connected in a fluid manner. Duffy says that the architectural choice a company makes depends both on the conditions in which it is fighting to survive and on the type of work it assigns its personnel. Based on this, he describes three essential orientations. First, he notes the importance of relations between architectural decisions and organizational structure that make it possible to derive probability laws on the ability of different types of buildings to adapt, with time, to the organization's activities. Next, the impact of organizational values is taken into consideration. These are transmitted or reinforced by the choice of different building shapes. He indicates that not only the functional importance of the buildings is considered here but also their symbolic meaning. Finally, any architectural process intervenes in an organizational dynamics where the intervening parties find themselves caught up in conflicts between the decision makers and the different departments. As experts, they are also solicited for spatial solutions to certain explicit or hidden conflicts. This shows to what degree the process is linked to the crucial problems studied by the humanities. The model proposed by Duffy defines the framework of the work structure as being the trace left by organizational relations and conflicts. In an environmental design project, space, as potential, is used as a tool to stimulate the necessary choices. This model thus draws its inspiration from a model of organizational change and shows the importance of the meaning attributed to space and the importance of its social use by individuals.

4.3 Improvement of Working Conditions A final point of view using the intervention model encompasses the processes that associate spatial design and the improvement of working conditions. It includes, on one hand, socio-technical approaches used to set up environmental design programs and, on the other hand, approaches based on multidisciplinary teams that use personnel consultation. In France, this type of approach has especially been encouraged by the ANACT (Agence nationale pour Γ amelioration des conditions de travail9), for the conception of workspace (factories and offices). National Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions.

154

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

In various forms, these approaches try to simultaneously treat space-linked problems and work organization problems. The method they develop is that of an investigation of various work aspects and includes the company's social actors in the different stages of conception and realization. It is necessary to underline the unique character of the ANACT's approach as it is noticeably different from the more usual approaches where the hierarchy takes all the initiatives and controls the project. In the methods recommended by the ANACT, personnel consultation is used in an institutional way, by forming groups that, right from the beginning, are integrated into the process, for example, the health and security commission. Although this model can be considered as a relatively marginal phenomenon, it reveals, nevertheless, a new manner of looking at the conception and spatial design of workspace, even if, as Evette (1984) has emphasized, the role reserved for personnel continues to be marked by the ambivalence of the consultation process. The environmental design models that we have just described, and that each, from their own point of view, considers space as a resource, bring to light two relatively conflicting conceptions: one in which space is a functional resource, defined a priori by designers and decision makers and another in which space is a resource managed, at least partially, by the company's personnel. We can thus consider that the functionality of space, created by the architectural process, depends on the congruency between the spatial design project and personnel expectations. Thus any workspace is, finally, only a potential resource because, even if it is technically and functionally conceived and defined in an optimal way, it is socially undetermined, at least partially, and, in certain cases, only temporarily. When social intervention takes over the space, it evaluates it according to other criteria and continually reallocates it to goals that result from a feeling of satisfaction, dissatisfaction, or retreat with respect to work.

Chapter 2: Experiments We will now introduce several environmental design experiments that each show how space has been treated as a resource and toward what goal. Some show the importance environmental design projects attach to the actual design; others try rather to improve working conditions through the organization of space; even others show the individual's ability to define their own workspace.

1 Workspace Design A certain number of experiments deal with the search for a design adapted to company strategy. Along this line, Seiler (1984) relates the construction of the new head office of a company that produces integrated circuits. The goal of management was to create a building that reflected company dynamism. The company was confronted with a marketing problem to convince potential clients of the specificity of the components it sold. To do this it had decided to manufacture these components itself. The company wanted, in this way, to convince its clients that it was able to furnish them with standard components according to their needs. However the factory was not adapted to meet these requirements: its different departments were located at random all over the building and the assembly lines were located elsewhere. It was thus necessary to conceive a new building where the assembly line would become the main element. Management was conscious as well of the fact that the new building would also be important as a communication system, so its architecture was conceived so that clients and visitors would immediately be aware of the variety of its products. And indeed, everyone who entered the building and found themselves in the company's reception hall could see, on the other side of a glass partition, the assembly area and a large two story gallery, the building's principal artery. The client could thus observe the fabrication process of several completely automated units. In this experiment, the design effort gave rise to a system of communication with the outside environment, which, it seems, made it possible for clients to form a concrete opinion of the product, and produced positive results for the company. The creation of the offices of the Dutch company Central Beheer (Netherlands) brings to light another dimension of design: workspace design should help employees feel at home rather than facilitate communication with the outside. The building, conceived as an assembly of small, partially enclosed spaces (fig. 75), is made up of four wings separated by a central cross shaped corridor; the north, south and west wings house the offices, the east wing houses the restau-

156

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

Figure 15 The building, an assembly of small, partially enclosed spaces

rant, show rooms, child care facilities and large terraces. On the ground floor of each wing there is space for shops that open out onto a pedestrian area. The central corridor, that divides the building in four, is set up as public space with rest areas, coffee bars, etc.. There are multiple entries to the building, different entries that depend on whether one arrives by car, bus or on foot. There is no one main entry; all of the entries are conceived as "main" entries. The office spaces are articulated in such a way that the group or individual working there can appropriate it in their own way. This building particularly draws our attention as being a system where spatial design through its open and "incomplete" character helps develop a type of intervention and appropriation. Thus spatial organization, considered as a form of work reality, presents itself as a system of potentialities that can stimulate an individual to appropriate it (fig. 16). These general characteristics were expressed in the architectural process and evaluated according to the impact they had on employees. The Central Beheer

Chapter 2: Experiments

157

Figure 16 Space, a system of potentialities

building, through its shape and the conception of its different levels and spaces, was created as an invitation to make the workplace into living space. Its framework was conceived of as being at the service of the individual instead of being an imposed tool. In the minds of the conceivers, a new building is propitious to the reappraisal of prior responsibilities and relations. The architect, by giving an

158

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

„-.«r

Figure 17

Personal work space

organizational program a "form," can bring individuals to discover new possibilities and thus show that the personal interests of each one can be served thanks to the organization of space. At the start, several assumptions formed the basis of the building's design. First, the building should take people and their values into account, and provide them with a climate that gives them a feeling of well-being. It should also provide each individual with a work area they agree on. To do this, the designer must give special attention to personal workspace by letting individuals choose, at a given moment in a given situation, what they think is the most appropriate. For example, the simple fact of choosing one's own lighting and type of desk, having the possibility to decorate one's space with posters, flowers or plants, and having some power over this space gives one the feeling of having taken possession of it (fig. 17). Next, this building was planned to house both individual and group activities, allowing various regroupings and acting as an organizational stimulant. Lastly, one of the fundamental aspects of this building is its unfinished character translated by gray tones and raw concrete to incite individuals to leave their own mark. In other terms, this space is conceived of as an open, active environ-

Chapter 2: Experiments

159

ment that invites each one to choose their own style of arranging their own place and in this way show that they are different from others. Ten years after its construction, a study was carried out to find out what impact this design had had on its users and to see whether expectations and user reactions corresponded. The interviews with the personnel showed, first of all, that, in the building's first years of existence, a number of interesting practices in decorating personal space developed, practices that were interpreted as compensation reactions to the previous situation in which this decoration was not possible. However, no differences between the appropriation practices of new employees and employees who had been with the company for some time was noted. Generally speaking, designing space as a number of small personal workspaces, in defined zones, and in personal and group territories, based on scales and values habitually used for private space, was not felt to hinder organizational imperatives.

2 Environmental Design and Working Conditions For the past fifteen years, certain environment design projects have tried to take problems linked to working conditions into consideration. From this perspective, it is admitted that working conditions can be improved right at the time of design of a space. We will present here several examples, certain now classic, to show how working conditions have been treated by beginning with the company as it is, with its organizational style and its own type of social relations.

2.1 The Volvo Experience This classic example shows how a new factory construction project gave a company the opportunity to deal with working condition problems. In the sixties, Volvo was up against relatively serious social problems: absenteeism, rapid employee turnover, lack of work motivation. All these elements generated extra expenses, especially due to the necessity of hiring temporary personnel. The company seized the opportunity of the construction of a new factory at Kalmar on the eastern coast of Sweden to take the working problems it was faced with into account by designing better organized space, able to lessen their workers' work load and increase their satisfaction. The new factory was conceived to house a new work organization based on the principle of team work. In the factory, each team has its own space shaped as a hexagonal prism (fig. 18). Each team also has its own social area. The teams work along the exterior walls of the building and can thus see outside. About thirty

160

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Warehouse Body stock Reception of material Pre-assembly Material

6. 7. 8. 9.

Body assembly Rest area Rest rooms Locker rooms

Figure 18 The layout of a Volvo workshop organized as autonomous space for a work group

teams of fifteen people each work in this factory. An important innovation was introduced into the assembly process of the new factory: a battery operated trolley serves both as conveyor and assembly platform. This element greatly improved working conditions by, for example, allowing an individual to remain in the same place. This was an extremely important evolution from the usual assembly line that advanced at constant speed. Thanks to this assembly process and to task rotation, which was also new, workers were able to diversify their activity and carried out ten times more tasks than those possible on a classic assembly line. The Kalmar factory was an experiment in taking working conditions into consideration in conceiving and adapting space. Surveys conducted by the Swedish Work Confederation and The Kalmar factory's Employer's Association show that 80 per cent of the workers thought that their working conditions had improved. In particular, they found that team

Chapter 2: Experi ments

161

work and environmental design had created "factories within the factory," thus encouraging a feeling of team solidarity. The workers appreciate the quality of the workspace itself more than the social area that is provided. This perception of quality is shown by the positive ratings given to acoustic climate, lighting, and also security. In other words, the workers, as a whole, consider the working conditions at Kalmar as being thoroughly satisfying; and this seems to be directly linked to the fact that the goal of the process was to find solutions to working condition problems. The new environment was thus considered as being satisfactory because it was an important part of the perception they had of their new working conditions. The Kalmar factory is a relatively typical example of the overlapping of environment and work organization. It shows, first of all, that the conception of this new factory made it possible to take into account and to improve the previous unsatisfactory working conditions, in as much as a new type of work organization was conceived (team work) and expressed in a spatial configuration that made this organization effectively possible. This experiment also brings to light, through surveys, the different regulation mechanisms that develop at the worker level between the environment and the workers. To be more precise, it shows that the functioning of the new system created a positive feeling with respect to the environment, because of the induced perception that it could resolve previous problems.

2.2 Redesigning Office Space The example that we are now going to present shows how, in one company, the necessity to redesign space triggered a process of work reorganization. The example concerns a banking establishment located in the center of a medium-sized city in two adjacent buildings of five and six stories with one or two communicating doors between them on each floor. Because of this arrangement, activities were relatively dispersed and this was reflected in more or less serious organization and communication problems. Added to this situation was the fact that certain departments had to be computerized and this made functioning difficult, especially with regard to space. The problem was defined as follows: given the equipment needed by certain departments and given the evolution of the banking structure, should a new location in the suburbs be envisaged or should the actual location be maintained, but be imperatively redesigned? The decision was made to redesign the existing workspace. To do this, the department where checks were handled was considered as the pivotal space for which the new design was to be designed, as, in this way, the necessary would not disturb all of the organization. The department employed 36 people and was made up of rows of desks covering 860 square feet of floor space (fig. 19).

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

162

.

•JJ

f~\

i

•v

J

^^

c

:

; cc

w

) ) W

I 1 1 checking account

clearin

9

"tables"

machines

encoding

secretaries' desks and unpaid claims

department head and assistant

Figure 19 Existing plan before alterations

Chapter 2: Experiments

163

The design project consisted of re-examining the location and organization of the work stations, as well as the relations between this and other departments. The process was led by the managers with no outside help; it was based on the hypothesis that the department employees' work experience and knowledge should make it possible to find satisfactory solutions. The employees were thus solicited right from the start of the process by a commission whose role was to establish a diagnosis of the existing situation and to submit propositions to improve it. This process, based on group work, resulted in a series of propositions that brought to light the necessity of, first of all, redefining the work stations. Reflection on how to reorganize work gave rise to an environmental design that had been conceived and defined by the department's employees as a group. This new design was, in a way, deduced from the reorganization of work and became, in a manner, a new expression of this work organization. If we consider the characteristics of the adopted design, we note, first of all, a modification of the traditional office space considered as unsuitable because it used up too much floorspace. Personal workspace has been reduced and its form revised to allow each person to exchange more easily with those around them. For example, triangular work surfaces were conceived to multiply the number of positions favorable to communication and group work (fig. 20). Interior design expressed itself through the acquisition of furniture suited to the new tasks. In addition to reducing personal workspace, the reduction in the volume of documents due to computerization made it possible to use narrower storage space or shelves incorporated in the work stations. The extra space gained in this way was furnished with filing cabinets with locks for important documents or with fold down doors to facilitate work done standing up. Next, this process helped to improve the general organization of the space. The whole department was soundproofed by covering the ceiling with acoustic tile, the walls with a vinyl material, and the floor with carpeting. The personnel was able to choose among a variety of materials and create its own climate which was felt to be important in regaining control over their workspace. Finally, it was decided to design a meeting area and this for two purposes: to provide a space for exchange and the examination of certain documents, and also to provide space for informal encounters. This facilitated more flexible communication in the department. The result of this process shows that what was at first a space problem served as a catalyst to mobilize the department to modify its own work system. This experiment, in particular, brings to light the fact that problems linked to space always carry with them, more or less predominantly, problems linked to the work itself. Moreover, it shows that the environmental design solutions a company adopts depend largely on the way the company approached and treated the problem within the company. And finally, this experiment shows that spatial design problems can be triggering elements able to set hidden resources in motion and to invent new department or company work practices.

164

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

t department head and assistant

25' 7"

movable partition (h = 5Ί1" glass partition 23' 9"

Figure 20

22' 6"

1

New office design and reorganization

2.3 Conception of New Workspace As we said earlier, in France it is the ANACT that encouraged processes associating space organization and working conditions right from the moment of conception. We will present one of the realizations that obtained a first prize in the context of this initiative. It involves the conception of a new smelting works located in a rural area and employing about a hundred people. When the project was being studied, the factory was organized in three buildings. The first, a fairly decrepit, hangar-like building, housed the original work-

Chapter 2: Experiments

165

shop. The second building was more recent, and the third was an administrative building. The problems confronting the company were relatively bad working conditions: all kinds of harmful ambient conditions, frequent exposure to danger, unsuitable arrangement of work stations, and heavy work load. In addition, because it was located in a rural area, the rural mentality of most of the workers did not readily adapt to the change brought by the rapid evolution of production techniques and made their training and integration difficult. Because of this situation, the project goal was to take these working conditions into account right at the outset of the factory's conception. This gave rise to a work method in three stages. During the first stage, consulting the users, the essential options that were to guide the whole project were defined. These options were as follows: - to emphasize the value of the work content, which is to say, increase responsibility for the product, enrich tasks, and suggest a style of functioning that included choices; - to improve physical working conditions by decreasing harmful ambient conditions, by improving the overall lighting as well as the lighting of certain work stations; - to eliminate man/woman discriminations by making certain jobs less arduous and by giving women access to higher level jobs; - to create a number of spaces on a human scale to facilitate social life and communication both in the workshop and in other areas of the company; - to integrate the factory into the rural environment. During the second stage, called 'programming," as much essential technical, economical, and social data as possible was collected. Two main principles guided this stage: the creation of inside spaces susceptible to preserve group privacy, and the taking into account of both task requirements and production process requirements in order to make the physical environment the least harmful possible. The third stage was that of architectural conception, which is to say, the spatial translation of all these stipulations. This was considered to be a key moment as it revealed to the workers which of their expectations had been met and which had not. The position adopted here was to try to establish, for each set of activities, a group of constraints linked to ambient conditions, tasks to be carried out, workshop organization, and place in the social system. This was done progressively, partial synthesis by partial synthesis. A type of environmental design susceptible of providing punctual solutions to different problems was defined; each element was treated in reply to a problem as seen from the inside. For example, as far as work organization was concerned, it became evident that the workers felt that their tasks were badly distributed; 51 per cent thought that their work station was too encumbered, and many thought that their work station should be enclosed. In reply to these suggestions, the project adopted the idea of several mini-workshops,

166

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

each able to accommodate a full work team who could choose between various manners of dividing up their tasks. The work organization could also vary depending on the type of parts to be produced, the size of the series, and personal interest. On another point concerning problems with ambient conditions, the personnel mentioned being bothered by smoke, by heat that sometimes became unbearable, by insufficient lighting generally, and by insufficient lighting of certain work stations at certain times of the day. The lighting problem was solved by installing sky lights and large picture windows; these elements were perceived as an answer to the workers' concerns and, consequently, as elements that improved physical working conditions. The workspace configuration that was gradually defined grew out of a compromise between production requirements and worker demands. It took the form of two parallel workshops, separated by a wide central corridor. In addition, this configuration also treats another specific space in an interesting manner: access to the factory. Those who arrive by foot cross a small square in front of the entry. This square was conceived on the model of a tree-lined public square like those in the villages in the region. The entry is located under a pyramid shaped area that houses social space, locker rooms, rest rooms and conference rooms. It is conceived to be a transitional space between the inside of the factory and the little square. This zone later became a zone highly appropriated by the workers. A process of this type can be interpreted as a compromise among several factors usually thought of as more or less contradictory: production factors, human and social factors, and environmental factors. If the proposed solutions were perceived as positive, it is not only because of their practical nature but also because they were the result, at every stage, of negotiation with the people directly concerned. Consequently, the conception and, later, the realization of this new factory were experienced as their own project because they were part of it from the beginning. Let us add that the cost of this project was about 15 per cent higher than the cost of a "normal" project due mainly to modifications introduced by the future users. In reality, this extra cost turned out to be an excellent investment; a year and a half later it had been paid off in company profits. As far as the social evaluation of the project goes, we can consider that the participation of the personnel in the decision making process and the creation of a committee to follow up on the project were essential factors in its success. They contributed to create a real equation between the various production requirements and their own needs, and their implication in the process later manifested itself in the way they appropriated the new space.

Chapter 2: Experiments

167

3 Environmental Design as Organizational Learning Certain experiments show that environmental design is an opportunity for a company and its members to learn an enormous amount about the organization itself. In other words, the different social partners become more familiar with the life of the company during this experience and this learning process contributes to the success of the design project. We will present two examples that illustrate this.

3.1 New Workspace Construction This experiment concerns the construction of new buildings for a company whose premises had become too small. The situation before planning the new project was the following: diversified activity, production and sale of mattresses, supply and maintenance of machines used to handle goods, etc.. The company employed about a hundred people. The old premises, located in a city, occupied two houses with communicating ground floors, with offices in front and workshops and warehousing at the back. The offices were set up in what had previously been apartments. The project was to conceive a completely new building complex, regrouping all of the activities dispersed throughout the old buildings, but nevertheless differentiating the company's two poles: workshop and administration. It was thus important that the new space should facilitate communication between the management staff of both and between office employees and workshop technicians.

3.1.1 Mobilization of Human Resources and Emergence of the Project The position the company adopted for the conception and construction of the new project was an empirical one, based on personnel mobilization, in order to, first of all, define the needs of the different departments. The management had, to this effect, asked all of the departments to hold meetings with their personnel to define needs in space and equipment and to establish a preliminary estimate of cost. The meetings took place following an agenda set by the personnel directors that suggested that the following elements be analyzed: floor space requirements, ambient acoustic and thermal conditions, lighting, location preferences within the new buildings. Each department had at its disposal a plan of the future site with an outline of the area where buildings could be built. This stage of the project took three months and involved five meetings in each department. It made it possible to take detailed inventory of the needs of the different sectors, to draft plans to base the rest of the process on, and, especially, to

168

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

mobilize the personnel and give them the opportunity to express a certain number of problems concerning their work organization. We also noted that these meetings gave an opportunity, for a fairly large number of employees, to express misgivings about moving, as the new site was outside the city, near a highway, in a relatively secluded area. This would mean a radical change in habits: a new itinerary out of the city to get to work, no possibility to do any quick shopping at lunch time, etc.. This process unquestionably modified the company's climate because of the dynamics that allowed the personnel to be confronted with a novel situation, with its incertitude and to implicate themselves in it by expressing needs and expectations. After this stage of collecting information, the next step, advocated by certain members of management, would have been to turn the project over to an architect. But, the company decided to adopt a different tactic: it organized a contest between the different architects who had shown interest in the project. Six of them accepted the challenge and submitted projects based on the specifications decided upon in the personnel meetings. None of these projects met with company approval as they did not correspond with the desired functioning, and the cost of these projects was estimated as being too high. For example, certain projects seemed to be the staging of an original architectural idea rather than the answer to what was requested. Moreover, the company decided that the architects had difficulty understanding the hierarchy of the company's requirements, and gave too much importance to certain configurations they thought would please the management.

3.1.2 The Characteristics of This Self-Managed Project Unsatisfied with these propositions, the company left the debate open for a whole year and took up one architect's first draft again with a group including members from all the departments. The aim of the group was to draw up a proposition based on the company's needs, and have this translated into a scale model. This model underwent several modifications until a solution was found that was satisfactory both on the work level and on the human level. This stage, which advanced through trial and error, was nevertheless felt to be a decisive experience as it made it possible to decide on what the company called its "home-made project." This project, in its general lines, was made up of two buildings: a main building housing a large workshop with a technical complex and administrative space, and a smaller building, separated from the first for security reasons, that housed the workshop manufacturing mattresses. Thus, one year after the contest, the company called on an engineering consultants' office and an architect to refine the technical part of the project (drawings, plans, specifications, supervision of the building site ...). The most important as-

Chapter 2: Experiments

169

pect here is the fact that the company invested its own resources in inventing, with its members, its new workspace. Even though the company consecrated quite a bit of time to thinking about, defining, and conceiving a space that met its requirements, the solution that was adopted was unquestionably a success. The users describe it as their own; having participated in the definition of their future workspace, they rapidly appropriated it, after having invested their energy in making this change. Where work is concerned, the new design made it possible to create team structures eliminating the discrimination that manual workers and salesmen had felt in the old buildings. This experiment also shows that the procedure adopted played a role in the feeling of satisfaction and positive investment the employees have with regard to their new workspace. However a process of this type was only possible because of the relatively small size of the company. The company was able to define a style of functioning that made it possible to structure group expression and to put it into practice in the course of the different project stages. Finally, this experiment shows that it is the fact that the company actively took responsibility for its environmental design project that allowed it to find a solution that corresponded to the original requirements. This reveals the special character of the company's undertaking; its answer to its own problem is not necessarily valid for others; but it does, however, give an indication of the degree of correspondence between a given solution and the implication of organization members. The more the personnel is involved in the design of a space, the more they are likely to adhere to the solution adopted, and, consequently, invest themselves emotionally in the new space. The compatibility between a spatial design and the socio-technical requirements is a direct result of the manner in which the actors are implicated in this type of process.

3.2 Workspace Extension The last example concerns a workspace extension project. The company, located in an industrial zone, has an exclusive concession for selling, renting, and servicing fork-lift trucks. It is made up of commercial, technical, and administrative premises and employs seventy-five people. Activity growth resulted in the progressive overcrowding of certain spaces, especially the accounting department, because of an ever increasing volume of documents. With insufficient storage space, offices became overcrowded and too small. This overcrowding also affected the sales department and there was no real communication area where clients could be received. And, finally, movement within the building was becoming difficult. For example, a client coming from outside had to cross several offices where employees were at work to get to the sales counter. This resulted in disturbance caused by permanent coming and going.

170

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

To resolve these functional problems due to overcrowding, the company decided to transform and extend part of its premises. At first, only the office area was going to be enlarged as the company did not want to make too big a financial investment in the project but the banking establishment it consulted practically forced it to consult an architect. When the project was drawn up, management submitted it to their personnel in informal meetings in each department and this gave the personnel the opportunity to criticize it in many ways. By soliciting feedback in a relatively informal way, management helped hidden needs to be expressed. At the same time, this helped to bring out the lack of correspondence between the architect's proposition and employee aspirations. Because of this management decided to abandon the project and find another architect. Personnel consultation thus, paradoxically, lead to the project's being abandoned, while also permitting a fairly clear definition of employee demands. A new project was then started, based on the definition of the problems encountered in the different departments: lack of space in the administrative sector, need to reorganize the technical sector, difficulty of getting from one area to another, etc.. This time the project was a global project because the environmental design problems were now expressed in terms of space extension and of work reorganization. This exploratory stage gave rise to more meetings which helped to better understand the existing situation as well as to formulate propositions. A veritable global diagnosis became part of the actual architectural conception. This led to meetings between the architect and representatives from the different departments to try to translate the information that had been gathered into drawings. Each sector became implicated in a process that completely transformed the original idea of simply enlarging the premises. The company had been lead to realize that it housed many badly defined, unsuitable zones that were useless. It was thus better to start by looking for a better way to use existing space. Work with the architect made it possible to redirect the project and to enhance the value of the unused or badly used space. Existing arrangements were modified to create an organization adapted to the two specifications originally expressed by the company: activity autonomy and communication between departments. This imposed a major difficulty: the extension of the existing building would have to be undertaken while the departments were working on the premises. But the decision was made and if the process created a real disturbance, it was partially attenuated by the type of interaction that developed during the process. And, indeed, the construction work allowed the personnel to participate, in a way, in the materialization of their project. Thus, during the construction work, the employees were able to help resolve a number of small problems: where to install light plugs, how to arrange offices, what materials to use for decoration. A series of micro-modifications were thus introduced in the different departments. Two types of conclusions can be drawn from this experiment.

Chapter 2: Experiments

171

First of all, the design of the physical framework was conceived using the suggestions of the personnel. In opposition to the usual climate of workspaces where practical colors and materials "adapted" to work are used, here we find materials in warm colors like cork or brick that reflect an environment closely related to that of the private sphere. It seems as though this experiment resulted in the collective creation of a workspace with a private, intimate connotation. We also note changes at the organizational level that can particularly be seen in the domain of communication and information circulation. In the after-sales department, for example, the new disposition put the head of the department much closer to the spare parts department. In the technical department, a special space was created where the person responsible could isolate themselves and do their work in peace and quiet, which had never been the case before. These new conditions were also felt by the employees to be an improvement over previous working conditions; the suggestions and spontaneous direct interventions they contributed during construction were prolonged in the practices they used to mark the space, practices that did not exist before. In a more general manner, the conditions in which the project was decided, because of the size of the company and its management style, show how employee implication in the project is in relation to its social success. Right from the beginning, the personnel was associated in the project. The meetings allowed the architect to take the personnel's opinions into account and the information they provided furnished an alternative to the initial project. Finally, user intervention in the space as it was being constructed was felt to be both an expression of power and recognition of their real knowledge of the company. These dynamics were apparent, not only in the high level of satisfaction with the new workspace, but also in greater work efficiency.

Chapter 3: Outlook on the Future The models and experiments presented above show that space - used, managed, treated as material that is rational or sensitive, practical or psychological - is seen, in one way or another, as a resource. Exactly how can space be defined as a resource? Workspace, as we have seen, is a permanent subject of disagreement between two conflicting types of logic: one marked by practical technicality to optimize efficiency and the other defined by subjective spatial control.

1 Space: A Human Resource To consider space as a human resource in the work environment comes down to looking at the meeting point between these two types of logic and trying to understand the livability of an organization. This space I work in, does it enable me to reach an acceptable level of job satisfaction, do I find it livable? In this sense, the concept of resource can be defined at three distinct levels. First of all, space as a resource includes the idea of an inventory of potentialities. This shows that any space, depending on its configuration, its esthetics, its degree of comfort, its constraints, is made up of a certain number of ingredients, more or less potentially fertile, or sterile, and we can not know a priori if individuals or groups will use them or reject them, but they exist. Moos (1980) tried to find out how these ingredients could be considered as resources in an institutional environment. To do this he defined the resource environment using three distinct aspects: the feeling of security that comes from having fundamental needs satisfied; the socio-functional instrumentality necessary to interaction; and the development of the individual competencies necessary to self-esteem. As far as security is concerned, certain elements may contribute to this feeling: the organization of space into clearly defined personal territories, access to the outside, correspondence between the reasons for moving from one space to another and the routes provided, the modulation of the acoustic and lighting environment, and the definition of the limits of socio-functional zones. In the realm of socio-functional instrumentality, other spatial elements can be considered as resources: identification of spaces and persons, organization of space and furniture in a social "flower" shaped arrangement, semi-open offices, access to equipment, and development of space and time for socializing around the different job axes. Lastly, the development of individual competencies can be facilitated by the following factors: evident choice between several activities, flexible use of space,

174

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

access to equipment, and control over environment. For example, a configuration such as the small individual semi-enclosed workspace may be a strategic point from which more visual control may be exercised than from another type of space. This reading of space has the advantage of making the concept of environmental resource operational and showing how spatial configurations are closely linked to the social structure. Space can be considered as a resource at a second level to the extent that one can influence its design. Thus, a space "becomes" a resource because its dimensions, its material properties have been "re-designed" by mental ascendancy. Space only exists because it is the result of multiple interventions that transform it into territory, into a place, that is to say, an inhabited space. Any space becomes a resource in the sense that its volume, its forms, its interior design allow individuals to define it according to the adaptations they develop. Consequently, its physical characteristics must be perceived as so many aspects that can be in resonance with behavior, acts, relations. In this sense, we can observe different processes of environmental action. The relation to semi-fixed objects is a privileged domain in this respect, as it can be active. Thus, one may want to move one's desk, arrange filing cabinets differently, etc.. Another aspect of intervention shows that, in a space that is more or less constraining, such as workspace, there are certain limits and, faced with these limits, an individual can express more or less clearly defined preferences. It is on this preference mode that various forms of resources can be constructed. For instance, in a space where the possibility of control is limited, in which hardly any decisions can be made, the only resource left, in many cases, is to find a way to work that gets around the strict rule; in this case one improvises, that is, one creates selfvariation in the constraint by spreading a little humanity in a sterile space. We find here humanizing forces fully at work in spaces often characterized by their tendency to exclude human elements as being baroque elements that disturb the flow of technical space designed a priori as transparent space. A third level at which space is considered to be a resource concerns the interaction that can be established between the more or less "finished" character of a spatial design and the assertion of an individual's shell. The concept of "unfinished" spatial design means that the design has been conceived in a way that leaves choices to be made by the individuals who use it. This implies that a space includes a minimum of variety. Spaces that offer the most variety are those that are the most fertile, govern interactions the best, and survive the longest. Variety thus seems to be a guarantee of the satisfactory use of a space that is not strictly programmed. The concept of shell refers to the idea of human scale which, at the individual level, is the fundamental criteria of environment-behavior interaction. Using these elements, we can derive a topology of environmental scales that start with the individual and spread out around them in successive shells. Inside the work

Chapter 3: Outlook on the Future

175

framework, each individual establishes subjective shells through which they develop their scope of action: these are workspace shells. They have several distinct layers. The first covers the sphere of personal movement and personal space: it takes shape in the fundamental opposition between self and others and defines a first line of separation between my place and that of my neighbor, for example. The second includes, not only the workstation, but the space allocated to the workstation; it is the territory assigned to us, either individually or as a group. The territory of those who work with me may thus be differentiated from that of another group. The third indicates the existence of boundaries that separate territories by visible or invisible walls and bring to light access rules and prohibitions depending on the type of territory. The fourth layer shows the global opposition between organizational territory as "inside" and other territory as "outside." On this level the idea of shell designates the relation between belonging and not belonging around which a large part of professional life is organized. Space is thus progressively structured in a certain number of shells that affirm differentiation and illustrate the value of a space centered on the individual.

2 Space: Raw Material to Be Managed All of these factors, taken together, have brought to light several aspects of the quality of space in as much as space does not exist in itself but is defined and made up of social and psychological attributes produced by all of the activities, interactions, and representations associated with work. Reasoning based on this type of approach takes into consideration the individual's relation to the environment as a specific fact at all levels, no matter what the heterogeneity and the force of the other factors it has to deal with. This is a specific way of looking at the set of constraints that are present in the environmental design and occupation style of each organization, so that space is a privileged factor in professional reality. The description of the different types of relation an individual can have to space has shown its force, diversity and complexity. To speak of space as a resource thus supposes, at the conceptual level, an intention of integration that evokes the idea of a plan for the assignment and use of this resource and this, in fact, forms a style of work organization. But classical management methods do not yet seem to be appropriate to the apprehension of the physical realm whose various costs come under the category of structure expenses and are often the real responsibility of nobody in particular. We see here an attitude that hinders an accurate evaluation of the dynamics and of the mutation of workspace. Under these conditions, the conception of new build-

176

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

ings is privileged, with the idea that everything can be planned ahead of time and that, when the construction is finished, space problems can again be forgotten. The concept of resource, however, implies taking into account, at the management level, the aspects developed above. More specifically, it means that the physical environment becomes an object of constant management through the creation of frameworks in which to evaluate space, in which internal studies can be carried out, and in which local re-design initiatives can take place. This involves linking the legal responsibility that management does not have the means to actually exercise with the virtual control of the employees who do not have the means to translate their daily interventions in space into a real system of management. Several useful principles can be formulated to give shape to these orientations. First of all, space should be designed as a system of territories. An environmental design based on the idea of the geometrical size of functional areas that can be juxtaposed and added up excludes a priori any spatial value that cannot be quantified. The concept of territories refers to the problem of determining the "threshold" or size of "domains" depending on the type of work. This conception can be explained in three distinct ways. Firstly, it defines interior volume in terms of practical needs. What is important is the interior structure; the outside architecture follows. Alexander and Chermayeff (1977) noted in this respect that computer assisted building conception can develop two distinct programs using the same list of specifications, one designing the building from the inside out and the other from the outside in. The two resulting designs, respecting the same specifications, are profoundly different. An organization made up of territory systems especially shows the importance of relative proximity or distance in the distribution of space. The spatial system is thus seen as a system of "neighborhoods" that optimizes physical organization by reducing, not only physiological or financial cost, but also psychological cost by favoring a structure of exchanges. Secondly, the territory system is more adapted to taking individual or group work styles into account. Take, for example, a group in a workshop where a space/ group ratio of 6500 square feet to 12-person group has been defined. This is only a guideline; it is useful only as a way to make the definition of group territories possible with respect to company organization. Thirdly, the territory system is built up around the work station defined as personal territory. The design of the personal sphere should take into account psychological security as well as the physical comfort of the work station. Psychological security is associated here with an individual's ability to define and mark their own territory. Thus, it is important that personal territory can be appropriated (storage space, personal locker space close at hand). The definition of space as a system of territories implies, as a consequence, a spatial organization based on criteria that are not strictly functional.

Chapter 3: Outlook on the Future

177

Along this line, it is thought that space should be distributed according to an acceptable relation between Privatheit and Öffentlichkeit. We have noted in numerous instances that an ideology of flexibility and fluidity has recommended space that is more open and more accessible. But these big open environments oblige an individual to be constantly visible to others and provoke tension and escape mechanisms. An acceptable compromise must be found between open and enclosed space by introducing into the organization of different environments various types of screens that make it possible for individuals to regulate intrusion and disturbance and thus protect their own personal space. Another aspect concerns the marking of space. The possibilities and conditions for marking are just as important as spatial elements. Marking must be clearly defined by the organization as an element of personal management of one's own sphere. Marking is, in this sense, directly associated with the possibility of organizing one's space oneself. It indicates the degree of responsibility individuals have in intervening in the micro-decisions in their daily life, not only with respect to the disposition and the decoration of their work station, but also with respect to their participation in the definition of their work goals. Finally, a last criterion concerns the availability of space that is not completely defined by a functional role. It can be multi-functional and be used, depending on the case, for social purposes, by intervention in its disposition (moving objects), or by momentarily assigning it to a specific use (using an office for a meeting). All these elements can help to establish an inventory of potential elements of appropriation and also to make space more personalized. Any environmental design should be considered, as we have emphasized, as a social process in which it is "the human reaction to change that determines the objective value of this change" (Illich, 1977). Environmental design decisions are, in this respect, special social situations in which the question of the place of employee expression is posed. Let us remark first that employee participation in the conception of workspace is still limited; and, moreover, if it does exist, its field of expression is limited to the work station itself. This aspect has often been noted by sociologists as an alibi for "real" participation, as it is parceled out just like the work the individuals are assigned to. However, observation has shown, that in a general way, and not only at work, individuals are only mobilized by situations that directly concern themselves. In addition to the conception of space as a system of territories, there is a second orientation that sees the environment as an object of social participation or consultation. Space, in this case, as we have seen, is a factor in a company's social process. When this participation is real, we have observed a social dynamics that, through propositions and brainstorming, modifies existing relationships and especially the way hierarchy functions. In the examples we have given, this participation only concerned small and medium-sized companies. Within the framework

178

Part Four Space: An Organizational Resource

of large organizations the question of participation is surely posed in other terms. More basically, employee expression, in the case of environmental design, is determined by the type of social relations that exist in the company. Thus, it is important to understand under what conditions this expression takes place. Is it purely a transfer of information from the employees to the management or experts, in which individuals are only information dispensers, or is it a situation involving real negotiation that proceeds stage by stage with partial syntheses and progressive implementation using the elements of information provided? Consequently, the time set aside for the gathering and treatment of this information defines the place of employees in such an enterprise. The design of workspace could, in this way, be part of a certain number of provisions that provide it with a practical framework such as the Auroux laws in France on employee expression, hygiene and security committees, and committees on working conditions. These institutionalized instances could give support to this type of process. It is, of course, necessary in each case, to elaborate a process that takes the characteristics and uniqueness of the company into account. Although participation is an element that is important in itself, it cannot just be required or permitted only when there is a special situation: it either is, or is not, a part of company life. The type of participation will depend on the usual company practice on this point. Lastly, let us emphasize that, as a time of study and analysis of a company's way of functioning, a spatial design experience cannot be successfully carried out if a certain number of other criteria are not taken into consideration. In particular, work organization and the means to improve it must be analyzed. In this sense, environmental and organizational action must be treated as two inseparable elements that make it possible to establish a positive correlation between the search for better efficiency and for social satisfaction, even if the nature of this correlation remains fundamentally ambiguous and uncertain.

Conclusion

Workspace psychology, now that we have studied its essential aspects, takes on its own set of characteristics: a certain way of looking at an organization with reference to the relation individuals have to the space they work in. We can thus summarize what we have learned in this process. First of all, the analysis of workspace shows that we need the concepts of territory and of territorial behavior in social and professional situations: personal space, distance, topological field are dimensions that appear at every level of work life, explicitly or in what Hall (1973) calls "silent language." It is through modalities specific to the relation to the environment, such as appropriation processes, that we discover the value of work territories as support for individual and group control of more or less meaningful constraining situations. These mechanisms manifest themselves, in particular, through their capacity for cognitive distortion of physical space, thus revealing the lack of correspondence between two conceptions of space: the technological approach that cuts space into the segments necessary for given activities, and individual awareness of space through cognitive modalities that qualify it socially. One of the findings that stands out in our observations is the fact that the relation to workspace is by nature conflictive. Work logic particularizes tasks, divides up activities, and denies the personal character of those who carry them out. In this context, any personalization is suspect. The process of privatization is depreciated by technological mechanisms that work in cold transparency and pierce the individual's shells by destroying any attempt, not of creating functional space, but of creating protective space for oneself to escape organizational control. Fundamentally, as our observations have shown, space, in its various configurations, is an expression of social structures. It is precisely for this reason, among others, that interaction with space or between individuals in different workspaces is evaluated, felt, and lived as social reality. Forces constantly at work in the social context are expressed through this social reality: dominance and submission, transparency and opacity. Although the result of this dialectic relation is always uncertain, we can nevertheless note the existence of a permanent reactivity between an individual and the spaces in which they carry out their work. Using this analysis, a psychosocial approach to workspace can show organizational phenomena in several different lights. It can further the understanding of organizational behavior by showing the influence of the environment. It also makes it possible to grasp how space can facilitate certain social phenomena by creating opportunities to interact and by providing conditions favorable to the development of group solidarity. Finally, the analysis of space makes it possible for us

180

Conclusion

to evaluate to what extent environmental proprieties reflect organizational structure and culture and to what extent the members of an organization understand the messages carried by spatial symbols and share the values they evoke. We do not pretend that this psychosocial approach to workspace is the only usable model to explain all organizational phenomena. But, generally, the findings it brings to light explain a behavior aspect that plays a role in performance and job satisfaction and, in this sense, its contribution helps to improve the understanding of certain situations. Research needs to be developed in this field, particularly on the impact of the automation of office work, on problems concerning open space and planning intervention strategies, and on the socio-physical mechanisms associated with control or with environmental user competency. These orientations make it possible, among other things, to explain the nature and the importance of the factors that come into play in the evaluation of space (Canter and Rees, 1982). Thus, on one hand, measurements of the "objective" environmental properties are often deduced from the subjective evaluations of its users. On the other hand, certain scholars maintain that the measurements obtained are independent of user perception. Finally, the conceptual and methodological contribution of this psychosocial approach to workspace can be used to orient decisions concerning the design of new spaces or the re-design of existing premises. Take the case of open office landscaping, designed to encourage communication and stimulate production; they seemed justified until their negative impact on individual attitudes and behavior became evident. Environmental psychology helped to explain this, but many decision-makers were not convinced of the merit of this approach. The various findings obtained through a psychosocial approach to workspace bring a central factor to light: relations between individuals and their environments, as well as the value of their place, define a style of occupancy that cannot be reduced to its functional role These relations are stakes that go far beyond the function of the physical environment and serve as its support: by acting on space, an individual exercises a certain amount of freedom, their ability to create autonomy even inside constraining space. This is an aspect of human behavior that environmental design experts, and also corporate managers, can no longer ignore.

Bibliography

Alexander C. and Chermayeff S. (1977). Intimite et vie communautaire: vers un nouvel humanisme architectural. Paris, Dunod. Alter N. (1985). La bureautique. Paris, Editions ouvrieres. Altman I. (1970). Territorial Behavior in Humans: An Analysis of the Concepts. Michigan, Ann Arbor. Altman I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior Privacy. Personal Space, Territories, Crowding. Monterey (Cal.). Brooks/Cole. Altman I. and Chemers M. (1980). Culture and Environment. Monterey (Cal.), Brooks/ Cole. Altman I. and Davis G. (1976). 'Territoires, intimite et contr le dans les espaces de travail." Appropriation de l'espace. Actes de la conference de Strasbourg, 584-599. Altman I., Taylor D. A. and Wheeler L. (1971). "Ecological Aspects of Group Behavior in Social Isolation." Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 76-100. Amiel M. S. (1984). Je demeure id. Quelques notes sur Γ interaction entre les personnes vivant en milieu institutionnel et leur environnement phyisque. Document roneotype. UQAM Montreal. ANACT/CERA (1978). "Conception des espaces industriels et amenagement du cadre de travail." Architecture et Methodologies, Paris. Ancelin-Schutzenserger A. (1978). Contribution α Γ etude de la communication non verbale, T. l. Paris, Honore Champion. Appleyard D. A. (1969). "Why Buildings are Known." Environment and Behavior, 1, 131156. Archea J. (1977). "The Place of Architectural Factors in Behavioral Theories of Privacy." Journal of Social Issues, 33, 116-137. Ardrey R. (1966). L'imperatif territorial. Paris, Stock. Argyle M. and Dean J. (1965). "Eye-Contact, Distance and Affiliation." Sociometry, vol. 28. Arnstein S. R. (1969). "Eight Rungs on a Ladder of Citizen Participation." AIP Journal, 217-225. Atman I. and Chemers M. (1980). Culture and Environment. Monterey (Cal). Brooks/Cole. Bachelard G. (1972). Poetique de l'espace. Paris, PUF. Barker M. L. (1976). "Planning for Environmental Indices: Observer Appraisals of Aire Quality." Perceiving Environmental Quality: Research Applications. Ed. K. H. Craik and E. H. Zube. New York, Plenum. Barker R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology. Stanford (Cal.). Stanford University Press. Bass B. M. and Bass R. (1976). "Concern for the Environment: Implications for Industrial and Organizational Psychology." American Psychologist, 31 (2). 158-166. Baum A. and Davis G. E (1975). "Reducing the Stress of High Density Living: an Architectural Intervention." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 667-671.

182

Bibliography

Baum A. and Valins S. (1977). Architecture and Social Behavior: Psychological Studies of Social Density. Hillsdale (N.J.). Erlbaum. Becker F. D. (1981). Workspace: Creating Environments in Organizations. New York, Praeger. Becker F. D. (1982). The Successful Office. Reading (Mass.). Addison-Wesley. Becker F. D. (1990). The Total Workplace. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold. Bell D. A., Fisher J. D. and Loomis R. J. (1978). Environmental Psychology. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Company. Benko G. B. (1990). La dynamique spatiale de l'economic contemporaine. La GarenneColombes, Editions de l'Espace Europeen. Benko G. B. (1991). Entreprise et territoire. Nouvelles tendances de recherche sur les consequences territoriales de l'organisation des entreprises: evolution de la recherche. Paris, Ministere de l'Equipement, du Logement, Direction de la Construction, Plan Construction et Architecture. Benko G. B. (1991). Geographie des technopoles. Paris, Masson. Bennet C. (1977). Spaces for People: Human Factors in Design. Englewood Cliffs (NJ.)Prentice-Hall. Bentham J. (1977). Le panoptique. Paris, Belfond. Bernard Y. and Gottesdiener A. (1982). " Röle de la dimension esthetique dans revaluation spontanee d'un habitat." international Review of Applied Psychology, XXI (2). 169183. Bemoux P. (1982). Un travail a soi. Toulouse, Privat. Berque A. (1981). Vivre I'espace au Japon. Paris, PUF. Besson F., Chombard de Lauwe P. H. and collab. (1974). De I'espace corporel a I'espace ecologique. Paris, PUF. Bobelle H. K. and Buchanan P. J. (1979). "Building a More Productive Environment." Management World, 8-10. Boje A. (1971). Open Plan Offices. London, Business Books. BOSTI (1981) (Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation). The Impact of Office Environment on Productivity and Quality of Working Life: Comprehensive Findings. Buffalo (N.Y.). Author. Bourdieu P. (1974). Esquisse d'une theorie de la pratique. Paris, Droz. Bronfenbrenner U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Boston, Harvard University Press. Brookes M. J. and Kaplan A. (1972). "The Office Environment: Space Planning and Affective Behavior." Human Factors, 14 (5). 373-391. Brower S. (1965). "The Signs We Learn to Read: Territoriality, the Exterior Space." Landscape, vol. 15. Brower S. (1980). "Territory in Urban Settings." Human Behavior and Environment. Ed. I. Altman, A. Rapoport and J. Wohlwill. New York Plenum. Burns T. and Stalker G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London, Tavistock Calhoun J. B. (1962). "A Behavioral Sink." Roots of Behavior. E. L. Bliss. New York, Harper and Row. Calhoun J. B. (1962). "Population Density and Social Pathology." Scientific American, 206, 139-146. Canter D. (1968). "Office Size, An Example of Psychological Research in Architecture." Architects Journal, 147 (7). 881-888.

Bibliography

183

Canter D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. New York, St. Martin Press. Canter D. (1981). "Environmental Psychology." Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1, 1-11. Canter D. (1983). "The Purposive Evaluation of Places: A Facet Approach." Environment and Behavior, 15, 355-380. Canter D. and Kenny C. (1982). "Approaches to Environmental Evaluation: An Introduction." International Review of Applied Psychology, 31 (2). 145-151. Canter D. and Rees K. (1982). "A Multivariate Model Of Housing Satisfaction." International Review of Applied Psychology, 31 (2). 185-208. Carroll G. R. (1984). "Organizational Ecology." Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 71-93. Castells M. (1975) Sociologie de l'espace industriel. Paris, Anthropos. Cazamian P. (1974). Lefons d'ergonomie industrielle. Paris, Cujas. Christian J. J., Flyger V. and Davis D. E. (1961). "Phenomena Associated with Population Density." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 47,482-489. Clearwater Y. A. (1979) Social-environmental Relationships in Open and Closed Offices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California. Cohen S., Evans G. W., Krantz D. S. and Stokols D. (1986J. Behavior, Health and Environmental Stress. New York, Plenum. Conrath D. W. (1973). "Communication Patterns, Organizational Structure and Man: Some Relationships." Human Factors, 15,459-470. Craik K. H. (1973). "Environmental Psychology." Annual Review of Psychology, 24,403422. Craik K. H. and Mac Kechnie G. E. (1977). "Personality and the Environment." Environment and Behavior, 9, 155-168. Crouch A. and Nimran J. (1989). "Office Design and the Behavior of Senior Managers." Human Relations, 42 (2), 139-155. 139-155. Crozier M. and Friedberg E. (1977). L'acteur et le Systeme. Paris, Le Seuil. Davis G. and Altman I (1976). "Territories at the Work Place: Theory into Design Guidelines." Man-Environment Systems, 6,46-53. Davis G. and Szigeti F. (1982). "Programming, Space Planning Office Design." Environment and Behavior, 14 (3). 299-317. Davis G., Becker F. D., Duffy F. and Sims W. (1985). Orby 2 Study. USA, Harbinger Group, Xerox Corporation. Davis T. M. R. (1984). "The Influence of the Physical Environment in Offices." Academy of Management Review, 9 (2). 271-283 De Long A. J. (1970). "Dominance-Territorial Relations in a Small Group." Environment and Behavior, 2, 190-191. Dejean P. H., Pretto J. and Renouard J. P. (1988). Organiser et concevoir des espaces de travail. Paris, Ed. de ΓAgence National pour Γ Amelioration des Conditions de Travail. Dejours C. (1993). Travail, usure mentale. Paris, Le Centurion. Dereck G. and Urry J. (1985). Social Relations and Spatial Structures. New York, St. Martin's Press. Downs R. M. and Stea D. (1973). Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior: Process and Products." Image and Environment. Ed. R. M. Downs and D. Stea. Chicago, Aldine, 8-26. Downs R. M. and Stea D. (1977). Maps in Minds: Reflections on Cognitive Mappings. New York, Harper and Row.

184

Bibliography

Drenth P. J. D., Thierry H., Willems P. J., and Wolff C. J. de (1983). Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology. Wiley. Drury J. (1980). Handbook of factory design. London, The Architectural Press. Dubos R. (1980). Man Adapting. 2nd ed. New Haven, Yale University Press. Dubost J. (1987). L'intervention psychosociologique. Paris, PUF. Duffy F. (1969). "Role and Status in the Office." Architectural Association Quarterly, 1, 4-13. Duffy F. (1974a). "Office Design and Organization: 1. Theoretical Basis." Environment and Planning B, 1, 105-118. Duffy F. (1974b). "Office Design and Organization: 2. The Testing of a Hypothetical Model." Environment and Planning B, 1, 217-235. Duffy F. (1992). The Changing Workplace. London, Phaidon. Edelman M. (1978). Space and Social Order. Madison (Wise.). Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin. Edney J. J. (1974). "Human Territoriality." Psychological Bulletin, 81 (12). 959-973. Edney J. J. (1976). "Human Territories: Comment on Functional Properties." Environment and Behavior, 8, 31-47. Eliade M. (1965). Le sacre et le profane. Paris, Gallimard, coll. Idees. Eliade M. (1979). Traite d'histoire des religions. Paris, Payot. Ellis P. (1982). "Shared Outdoor Space and Shared Meaning." International Review of Applied Psychology, 31 (2). 209-222. Emery F. and Trist E. (1965). "The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments." Human Relations, 18, 21-32. Evans G W. and Howard R. (1973). Personal Space. Mimeograph. Evans G. W. and Pezdek K. (1980). "Cognitive Mapping: Knowledge of Real World Distance and Location Information." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 13-24. Evans G. W., Fellows J., Zom M. and Doty K. (1980). "Cognitive Mapping and Architecture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65,474-478. Evans W. E. (1980). "Environmental Cognition." Psychological Bulletin, 88, 259-28. Evette T, (1984). "La consultation du personnel." Conception des lieux de travail. Paris, Centre de creation industrielle. Farbstein J. (1975). Organization, Activity and Space. Ph.D. thesis, University of London. Fischer G. N. (1980). Espace industriel et liberte. Paris, PUF. Fischer G. N. (1981). La psychosociologie de l'espace. Paris, PUF, coll. Que Sais-je?. Fischer G. N. (1983). Le travail et son espace. Paris, Dunod. Fischer G. N. (1984). "Le bureau, espace de la vie quotidienne." L'empire du bureau. Paris, Berger-Levrault. Fischer G. N. (1987). "Les processus d'appropriation de travail: le changement comme jeu social." Psychologie et education, 1-2, 133-141. Fischer G. N. (1992). Psychologie social de l'environnement. Toulouse, Privat. Fischer G. N. and Vischer J. (1996). Les espaces de travail: methodes d'evaluation. Montreal, Presses de l'Universite de Montreal. Foucault M. (1975). Surveiller et punir, naissance de la prison. Paris, Gallimard. Francescato D. and Mebane W. (1973). "How Citizens View Two Great Cities: Milan and Rome." Image and Environment. Ed. R. M. Downs and D. C. Stea. Chicago, Aldine, 131-148.

Bibliography

185

Frankenhauser M. (1981). "Coping with Stress at Work." International Journal of Health Services, 11,491-510. Friedman G. (1964). Le travail en miettes. Paris, Gallimard, coll. Idees Friedman Y. (1974). Meine Fiebel. Düsseldorf, Bertelsmann Fachverlag. Furnham A. and Schaeffer R. (1984). "Person-Environment Fit, Job Satisfaction and Mental Health." Journal of Occupational Psychology. 57, 295-307. Galetti J. (1992). Aux lieux du bureau, tendances du space-planning aux Etats-Unis. Paris, Plan Construction et Architecture, Collection Recherches. Gärung T., Book A. and Lindberg E. (1984). "Cognitive Mapping of Large-Scale Environments." Environment and Behavior, 16, 3-34. Geisler E. (1978). Psychologie für Architekten. Stuttgart. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Gemgross-Haas G. (1982). "Organizational Role Differences in the Evaluation of an Experimental School." International Review of Applied Psychology, 31 (2). 223-236. Godelier M. (1978). "Territory and Property in Primitive Society." Soc. Sei. Info., 17, 398426. Godelier M. (1979). "Territory and Property in Primitive Society." Human Ethology. Ed. M. von Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies and D. Ploog. Cambridge (Engl.). Cambridge University Press. Goffman E. (1973). La mise en scene de la vie quotidienne. Paris, Editions de Minuit. Golan M. B. and Justa F. C. (1976). "The Meaning of Privacy for Supervisors in an Office Setting." Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association Conference. Goodrich R. (1979). How People Perceive Their Office Environment. New York, City Bank. Goodrich R. (1982). "Seven Office Evaluations." Environment and Behavior, 14 (3). 353378. Goodsell C. T. (1977). "Bureaucratic Manipulation of Physical Symbols: An Empirical Study." American Journal of Political Science, 21, 79-91. Gouldner A. W. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York, Free-Press. Goumain P. (1989). High-Technology Workplaces. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold. Granath J. A. (1991). Architecture, Technology and Human Factors: Design in a SocioTechnical Context. Göteborg, Chalmers University of Technology. Gravelaine F. de (1991). Guide de l'amenagement de bureaux. Paris, Ed. du Moniteur. Gyllenhammar P. (1977). People at Work. Reading (Mass.). Addison Wesley. Haber G. M. (1980). "Territorial Invasion in the Classroom: Invadee Response." Environment and Behavior, 12, 17-31. Halbwachs M. (1950). La memoire collective. Paris, PUF. Hall E. T. (1963). "Quality in Architecture." Journal of the American Institute of Architects. Hall E. T. (1966). La dimension cachee. Paris, Le Seuil. Hall E. T. (1973). Le langage silencieux. Paris, Mame. Halloran J. (1978). Applied Human Relations: An Organizational Approach. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.). Prentice Hall. Hansen W. B. and Altman I. (1976). "Decorating Personal Places: A Descriptive Analysis." Environment and Behavior, 8 (4). 491-504. Hedge A. (1982). "The Open-Plan Office. A Systematic Investigation of Employee Reactions to Their Work Environment." Environment and Behavior, 14 (5). 519-542. Hediger H. (1965). Studies of the Psychology and Behavior of Captive Animals in Zoos and Circuses. London, Butterworth and Company.

186

Bibliography

Helson H. (1964). Adaptation-Level Theory: An Experimental and Systematic Approach to Behavior. New York, Harper and Row. Hensley W. E. (1982). "Professor Proxemics: Personality and Job Demands as Factors of Faculty Office Arrangement." Environment and Behavior, 14 (5). 581-591. Herzberg F. (1971). Le travail et la nature de l'komme. Paris, EME. Hillier B. and Hanson J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Holahan C. J. (1982). Environmental Psychology. New York, Random House. HolahanC. J. (1986). "Environmental Psychology." Annual Review of Psychology, 37,381407. Homans G. C. (1950). The Human Group. New York, Harcourt, Brace and World. Horowitz M. J., Duff D. F. and Stratton L. O. (1974). "Personal Space and the Body Buffer Zone." Environmental Psychology: Man and His Physical Space. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 214-220. House J. S. (1981). Work Stress and Social Support. Reading (Mass.). Addison-Wesley. Howard E. (1948). Territory in Bird Life. New ed. London, Collins. Huet A. (1990). Immeubles intelligents et teleports. Paris, Eyrolles. Illich I. (1977). Le chomage createur. Paris, Le Seuil. Ittelson W. H. (1978). "Environmental Perception and Urban Experience." Environment and Behavior, 10, 193-212. Ives R. S. and Ferdinands R. (1914). "Working in a Landscaped Office." Personal Practice Bulletin, 30(2)26-141. Jaques E. (1951). The Changing Culture of a Factory. London, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Joedicke J. (1959). Bürobauten. Stuttgart, Gerd Hatje. Joedicke J. (1975). Angewandte Entwurfsmethodikfür Architekten. Stuttgart, Karl Krämer. Josefowitz N. (1980). "Management Men and Women: Closed vs. Open Doors." Harvard Business Review, 53 (5). 56-62. Justa F. C. and Cullen K. (1983)."L'intervention environnementale: une affaire de competence." Psychologie canadienne, 24 (1). 37-45. Justa F. C. and Golan M. B. (1977). "Office Design: Is Privacy Still a Problem?" Journal of Architectural Research, 6 (1). 5-12. Jutras S. and Cullen K. (1983). "L*intervention environmentale: une affaire de competence." Psychologie Canadienne, 24 (1), 37-45. Kaplan S. and Kaplan R.(1981). Cognition and Environment. New York, Praeger. Klaue K. (1984). Le role de I'echelle dans les figurations de l'espace chez l'enfant. Geneve, Gilbert Rey S.A. Konar E. and Sundstrom E. (1985). "Status Demarcation in the office." Behavioral Issues in Office Design. Ed. J. Wienwman. New York, Van Nostrand. Konar E., Sundstrom E., Brady C., Mandel D. R. and Rice R. W. (1982). "Status Demarcation in the Office." Environment and Behavior, 14 (5). 561-580. Kotter J. P. (1983). The General Managers. New York, Free Press. Kraemer, Sieverts and Parners (1911). Open-plan Offices: New Ideas, Experience and Improvements. London, McGraw-Hill. Lauterman E. D. (1976). "A Theory of Environmental Competence: Architectural and Social Implications for the Elderly." Zeitschfriftfur gerontologie, 9, 433-443.

Bibliography

187

Lee T. (1970). "Perceived Distance as a Function of Direction in a City." Environment and Behavior, 2, 40-51 Lefebvre H. (1974). IM production de l'espace. Paris, Anthropos. Leguay J. P. (1984). La rue au Moyen Age. Quest-France. Leibson D. E. (1981). "How Corning Designed a 'Talking' Building to Spur Productivity." Management Review, 70 (9). 8-13. Leplat J. and Cuny W. (1977). Introduction ä la psychologic du travail. Paris, PUF, Coll. Le Psychologue. Leroi-Gourhan A. (1950). Milieu et technique. Paris, Albin Michel. Leroy C., Bedos F. and Berthelot C. (1972). "Approche de l'utilisation de l'espace d'une chambre par 1'etude dureseau des objets chez les malades mentaux." L'information psychiatrique, 48 (4). 377-392. Levi-Strauss C. (1955). Tristes tropiques. Paris, Plon. Levy-Leboyer C. (1980). Psychologie et Environnement. Paris, PUF. Levy-Leboyer C. (1981). "Anxiete et insecurite environnementale." Psychologie fra^aise, 3-4, 26, 223-235. Levy-Leboyer C. (1982). "devaluation subjective des nuisances: quelles mesures pour quels objectifs?" Revue internationale de psychologic appliquee, 31, (2). 253-269. Lewin K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Sciences. New York, Harper and Row. Lewin K. (1972). Psychologie dyamique. Paris, PUF. Linhart R. (1978). L'etabli. Paris, Editions de Minuit. Lipman A., Cooper I., Harris R. and Tranter R. (1978). "Power: A Neglected Concept in Office Design?" Journal of Architectural Research, 6 (3). 28-37. Lippitt R. (1958). The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York, Harcourt Brace and World. Lorenz K. (1970). Essais sur le comportement animal et humain. Seuil. Lyman S. and Scott M. (1967). "Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension." Social Problems, 15. Lynch K. (1976). L'image de la cite. Paris, Dunod. Mallick R. W. and Gaudreau A. T. (1951). Plant Layout, Planning and Practice. John Wiley and Sons. Malmberg T. (1980). Human Territoriality. Den Haag, Mouton. Manning P. (1966). "Industrial Production Buildings Briefing Guide." The Architects' Journal. Marans R. W. and Spreckelmeyer K. F. (1982). "Evaluating Open and Conventional Office Design." Environment and Behavior, 14 (3). 333-351. March J. G. and Simon H. A. (1971). Les organisations. 2e ed. Paris, Dunod. Trans, of Organizations. New York, Wiley. 1958. Margulis S. T. (1977). "Conceptions of Privacy: Current Status and Next Steps. " Journal of Social Issues, 33 (3). 5-21. Martindale D. A. (1971). "Territorial Dominance Behavior in Dyadic Verbal Interactions. " Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 6, 305-306. Maslow A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York, Harper. Matsunari K. (1991). Corporate Design in the Office Environment. Tokyo, Itoki. Mayo E. (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York, MacMillan. Me Gregor D. (1960). La dimension humaine de l'entreprise. Paris Gauthier-Villars. Trans, of The Human Side of Entreprise. New York, McGraw-Hill. 1960.

188

Bibliography

Me Kechnie G. E. (1977). "The Environmental Response Inventory in Application." Environment and Behavior, 2, 255-275. Me Namara T. P., Ratcliff R. and Me Koon G. (1984). 'The Mental Representation of Knowledge Acquired from Maps." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 723-732. Mehrabian A. (1976). Public Places and Private Spaces: The Psychology of Work, Play and Living Environments. New York, Basic Books. Mehrabian A. and R ssel J. A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge (Mass.). M.I.T. Press. Merleau-Ponty M. (1976). Phenomenologie de la perception. Paris, Gallimard. Michelson W. (\910).ManandHis Urban Environment: A Sociological Approach. Reading (Mass.). Addison-Wesley. Michelson W. (1977). "From Congruence to Antecedent Conditions: A Search for the Basis of Environmental Improvement." Perspectives on Environment and Behavior: Theory, Research, and Applications. Ed. D. Stokols. New York, Plenum. 205-219. Milgram S. and Jodelet D. (1976). "Psychological Maps of Paris." Environmental Psychology. Ed. H. M. Proshansky., W. H. Ittelson and L. F. Rivlin. 2nd ed. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 104-124. Miller E. K. (1959). "Technology, Territory and Time: The Internal Differentiation of Complex Production Systems." Human Relations, 12, 243-272. Milley J. (1965). La vie parisienne a trovers les ages. Paris. Mintzberg H. (1986). Structure et dynamique des organisations. Paris, Editions d'organisation. Moch A. (1984). "Aspects cognitifs des stress de l'environnement." Le travail humain, 47, 155-165. Moch A. (1987). Aspectspsychosociologiques des stress de l'environnement. Paris 8, These d'etat. Moles A. and Rohmer E. (1977). Psychologie de l'espace. 2nd ed. Paris, Casterman, coll. Mutations, Orientations. Moleski W. H. and Lang J. T. (1982). "Organizational Needs and Human Values in Office Planning." Environment and Behavior, 14(3). 319-322. Molinie A. F. and Raciedi M. F., eds. (1990). Conception des lieux.de travail, dossier documentaire. Montrouge, Ed. de Γ Agence Nationale pour Γ Amelioration des Conditions de Travail. Monod H., Rohr D. and Wisner A. (1963). La conception ergonomique des bailments industriels. Paris, Metrologie. Montmollin M. de (1967). Les systemes hommes-machines. Paris, PUF. Montmollin M. de (1981). Le taylorisme a visage humain. Paris, PUF. Montmollin M. de (1984). L'intelligence de la tache. Bern, Peter Lang. Moos R. H. (1976). The Human Context: Environmental Determinants of Behavior. New York, Wiley. Moos R. H. (1980). The Environmental Quality of Residential Care Setting in Optimizing Environments. Ed. R. Stough A. Wanderman. Washington, DC EDRA. Morgan G. (1989). Images de l'organisation. Quebec, Les Presses de l'Universite Laval et les Editions Eska. Morin E. ( 1986). Contribution a lapsychologie de l'espace organisationnel. Mimeograph. HEC Universite de Montreal.

Bibliography

189

Morrow P. C. and Me Elroy J. C. (1981). "Interior Office Design and Visitor Response: A Constructive Replication." Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 646-650. Munsterberg H. (1915). Business Psychology. Chicago (II.), La Salle Extension University. Nacher Y. (1990). Architecture et image d'entreprises: Nouvelles identites. Liege, Mardaga. Neisser W. (1976). Cognition and Reality Principles: Implications of Cognitive Psychology. San Francisco, W. H. Freeman. Nemecek J. and Grandjean E. (1973). "Results of an Ergonomie Investigation of LargeSpace Offices." Human Factors, 15, 111-124. Newman O. (1972). Defensible Space. New York, Macmillan. O'Brien G. E. and Pembroke M. (1982). "Crowding, Density and the Job Satisfaction of Clerical Employees." Australian Journal of Psychology. 34 (2). 151-164. Odorne D. J. and Gruneberg M. M. (1983). The Physical Environmental Work. Chichester, Wiley. Oldham G. R. and Brass D. J. (1979). "Employee Reactions to an Open Plan Office. A Naturally Occurring Quasi Experiment." Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 267-283. Osgood C. E., Suci G. J. and Tannebaum P. H. (1967). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. Pailhous J. (1970). La representation de l'espace urbain. Paris, PUF. Parsons H. M. (1976). "Work Environment." Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. Ed. I. Altman and J. F. Wholwill. New York, Plenum. Passini R. (1984). Wayfinding in Architecture. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold. Pastalan L. (1970). "Privacy as an Expression of Human Territoriality." Spatial Behavior of Older People. Michigan, Ann Arbor. Paznik M. J. (1986). "Ergonomics Does Pay." Administrative Management, 17-24. Pederson J. (1970). "The Physical Environment of the Mentally Handicapped. I. Progress in Building for the Mentally Handicapped." Journal of Mental Subnormality, 16, 121125. Peponis J. (1985). "The Spatial Culture of Factories." Human Relations, 38, 4, 357-390. Peters T. J. (1978). "Symbols, Patterns and Settings: An Optionistic Case of Getting Things Done." Organizational Dynamics, 1 (2). 2-23. Pfeffer J. (1982). Organization and Organization Theory. Boston, Pitman. Philip C. and Procureur G. (1972). Guide pour la conception d'une usine. Paris, Eyrolles. Piaget J. (1976). La psychologic de Γ enfant. Paris, PUF. Piaget J. and Inhelder B. (1977). La representation de l'espace chez Γ enfant. Paris, PUF. Pineau C. (1982). "The Psychological Meaning of Comfort." International Review of Applied Psychology, 31 (2). 271-283. Proshansky H. M, Fabian A. K. and Kaminoff R. (1973). "Place Identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self." Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83Proshansky H. M., Ittelson W. H. and Rivlin L. G. (1970). "Freedom of Choice and Behavior in a Physical Setting." Environmental Psychology: Man and His Physical Setting. Ed; H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson and L. G. Rivlin. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 173-183. Proshansky H. M., Ittelson W. H. and Rivlin L. G. (1976). Environmental Psychology: People and their Physical Settings. 2 ed. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Proshansky H. M., Ittelson W. H., Rivlin L. G. and Winkel G. ( 1974). An Introduction to Environmental Psychology. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Psychologie de l'Environnement (1987). N° special. Pychologiefra^aise, 32, 1-2.

190

Bibliography

Ranhagen U. (1989). Renewal of Industrial Environments. Stockholm, Swedish Council for Building Research. Ripon A. (1983). La qualite de vie au travail. Paris, PUF. Rivlin L. G. (1982). "Group Membership and Place Meanings in an Urban Neighborhood." Journal of Social Issues, 38, 75-93. Roethlisberger R. J. and Dickson W. J. (1939). Management and the Worker. Harvard University Press. Rohles F. H. Jr. (1978). "Habitability of the Elderly in Public Housing." Proceedings of the Human Factors Society. Santa Monica (Calif.). Human Factors Society. 693-697. Rolland-May C. (1984). Les espaces geographiques flous. These d'etat. Mimeograph. Universite de Metz. Rousselet J. (1974). L'allergie au travail. Paris, Le Seuil. Roustang G. (1982). Le travail autrement. Paris, Dunod. Rüssel J. A. and Pratt G. (1980). "A Discussion of the Affective Quality Attributed to Environments." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (2). 311-322. Rüssel J. A. and Ward L. M. (1982). "Environmental Psychology." Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 651-688. Saegert S., Mcintosh I. and West S. (1975). "Two Studies of Crowding in Urban Public Spaces." Environment and Behavior, 1, 159-184. Sainsaulieu R. (1977). L'identiteau travail. Paris, Presses de la Fondation nationale de sciences politiques. Sainsaulieu R. (1987). Sociologie de l'entreprise et de l'organisation. Paris, Dalloz. Scheflen A. (1976). Human Territories: How We Behave in Space Time. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.). Prentice-Hall. Schmidt D. and Keating J. (1979). "Human and Personal Control: An Integration of Research." Psychological Bulletin, 86, 680-700. Seiler J. A. (1984). "Architecture at Work." Harvard Business Review, 108-114. Selvini Palazzoli M. et al. (1984). Dans les coulisses de l'organisation. Paris, ESF. Simon H. A. and March J. G. (1971). Les organisations: Problemes psychosociologiques. Paris, Dunod. Smith H. W. (1983). "Estimated Crowding Capacity, Time, and Territorial Markers: A Cross-National Test." Sociological Inquiry, 53, 95-99. Smith M. J., Cohen B .G. F., Stammerjohn L. W. and Happ A. (1981). "An Investigation of Health Complaints and Job Stress in Video Display Operations." Human Factors, 23 (4). 387-400. Soja E. J. (1978) "The Political Organization of Space." Association of American Geographers, 1-54. Soljenitsyne A. (1963). Unejourjourneed'lvan Denissovitch. Paris, Gallimard, coll. 10/18. Sommer D. (1989). Industrie Bauten Gestaken. Vienne, Picus Verlag. Sommer R. (1962). "The Distance for Comfortable Conversation." Sociometry, 25, 111116. Sommer R. (1966). "Man's Proximate Environment." Journal of Social Issues, 22, 59-70. Sommer R. (1967). "Sociofugal Space." American Journal of Sociology, 72, 654-659. Sommer R. (1969). Personal Space, the Behavioral Basis of Design. Englewood Cliffs, (N.J.), Prentice-Hall. Sommer R. (1970). "The Ecology of Study Areas." Environment and Behavior, 271-280.

Bibliography

191

Sommer R. (1974). Tight Spaces: Hard Architecture and How to Humanize It. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.), Prentice Hall. Sommer R. and Becker F. D. (1969). "Territorial Defense and the Good Neighbor." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 85-92. Sperandio J. C. (1980). La psychologic de l'ergonomie. Paris, PUF. Sperandio J. C. (1984). L'ergonomie du travail mental. Paris, Masson. Stea D. (1978). "Space Territory and Human Movement." Environmental Psychology Man and His Physical Space. Ed H. M. Proshansky et al. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 37-42. Steele F. I. (1973) Physical Settings and Organization Development. Reading (Mass.), Addi son-Wesley. Steele F. I. (1983). "The Ecology of Executive Teams: A New View of the Top." Organizational Dynamics, 2 (4), 65-78. Steele F. I. and Jenks S. (1977). The Feel of the Workplace: Understanding and Improving Organizational Climate. Reading (Mass.), Addison-Wesley. Sterling T. D., Sterling E. and Dimich-Ward H. (1983). "Building Illness in the White Collar Workplace." International Journal of Health Services, 13 (2), 277-287. Stockdale J. E. (1978). "Crowding: Determinants and Eifects." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. II. New York, Academic Press, 197-247. Stokols D. (1978). "Environmental Psychology." Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 253295. Stokols D. and Altman I., eds. (1987). Handbook of Environmental Psychology. 2 vols. New-York, Wiley. Stone P. J. and Luchetti R. (1985). "Votre bureau? C'est la que vous etes!" Harvard, L'Expansion, 39, 34-54. Sundstrom E. (1975). "Toward an Interpersonal Model of Crowding." Sociological Symposium, 14, 129-144. Sundstrom E. (1984). "Physical Environment and Interpersonal Behavior." Social Psychology in the Eighties. 4th ed. Ed. K. Deaux and L Wrightsman. Monterey (Calif.), Brooks/ Cole. Sundstrom E. (1986). Work Places: The Psychology of the Physical Environment in Offices and Factories. With the collab. of M. G. Sundstrom. New York, Cambridge University Press. Sundstrom E. (1987). "Work Environments: Offices and Factories." Handbook of Environmental Psychology . Ed. D. Stokols and I. Altman. New-York, Wiley. 733-782. Sundstrom E., Burt R. E. and Kamp D. (1980). "Privacy at Work: Architectural Correlates of Job Satisfaction and Job Performance." Academy of Management Journal, 23 (1). 101-117. Sundstrom E., Herbert R. K. and Brown D. W. (1982). "Privacy and Communication in an Office-Plan." Environment and Behavior, 14 (3), 379-382. Sundstrom E., Town J. P., Brown D. W., Forman A. and Me Gee C. (1982). "Physical Enclosure, Type of Job, and Privacy in the Office." Environment and Behavior, 14 (5). 548-559. Theves J. (1973). Conception psychosociologique du bureau-paysager. Strasbourg, Institut de Psychologie sociale. Mimeograph. Tinbergen N. (1958). Curious Naturalists. New York, Basic Books.

192

Bibliography

Tolman E. C. (1948). "Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men." Psychological Review, 55, 189208. Touzard H. (1977). La mediation et la resolution des conflits. Paris, PUF. Triandis H. C. (1977). Interpersonal Behavior. Monterey (Calif.), Brooks/Cole. Trist E. L. and Bamforth K. W. (1951). "Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-getting." Human Relations, 4 (1). 3-38. Trist E. L., Higgin G. W., Murray H. and Pollock A. B. (1963). Organizational Choice. London, Tavistock. Uexkiill J. von (1956). Monde des animaux et monde humain. Paris, Gonthier, Bibliotheque Mediations. Vinsel A., Brown B., Altman I. and Foss C. (1980). "Privacy Regulation Territorial Displays and Effectiveness of Individual Functioning." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1104-1115. Vischer, J. C. (1989) Environmental Quality in Offices, New-York Van Nostrand. Vischer, J. C. (1996) Workspace Strategies: Environment as a Tool for Work. New-York, Chapman and Hall. Walker C. R. and Guest R. H. (1952). The Man on the Assembly Line. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Ward L. M. and Rüssel J. A. (1981). "The Psychological Representation of Molar Physical Environments." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 110 (2), 121-149. Weber M. (1971). Economic et societe. Trad. Paris, Plon. Westin A. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York, Atheneum. Wicker A. (1979). An Introduction to Ecological Psychology. Monterey, Brooks Cole. Wineman J. D. (1982). "Office Design and Evaluation. An Overview." Environment and Behavior, 14 (3), 271-298. Wohlwill J. (1974). "Human Adaptation to Levels of Environmental Stimulation." Human Ecology, 2 (2), 127-147. Woodson W. E. (1966). Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers. Berkeley, University of California Press. Wynne B. (1980). Nuclear Decision Making: Rationality or Ritual. London, British Society for History of Science. Zeigarnik B. (1907). Das Behalten erledigter und unerledigter Handlungen. Berlin, Julius Springer.

Author Index

Alexander, C. 176 Alter, N. 47 Altaian, I. 10, 11, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 22, 85, 92, 94, 95, 97 AN ACT 54, 153, 154, 164 Ancelin-Schutzenberger, A. 83 Ardrey, R. 10 Argyle, M. 18 Amstein, S. R. 150,151 Bamforth, K. W. 2 Barker, R. G. 7 Becker, F.D. 63 Bernard, Y. 28,30 Bobelle, H. K. 142 Book, A. 37 BOSTI 47, 128 Bourdieu, P. 24, 25 Brady, C. 93,94 Brower, S. 10, 12 Brown, B. 21 Brown, D.W. 21,96 Buchanan, P. J. 142 Bums, T. 65 Burt,R.E. 94-96 Ca!houn,J. B. 9 Canter, D. 5, 99, 180 Cazamian, P. 2 Chemers, M. 10,11 Chermayeff, S. 176 Christian, J. J. 10 Conrath,D. W. 142 Craik, K. H. 31 Crozier, M. 2,116 Cullen, K. 145 Davis, D.E. 10 Davis, G. 31,85 Davis, T. M. R. 62, 63, 142

De Long, A. J. 18 Dean, J. 18 Dejours, C. 131 Dickson.W.J. 65 Dimich-Ward, H. 54 Downs, R. M. 33, 34 Dubos, R. 55 Dubost,J. 149 Duff, D. F. 16, 17 Duffy, F. 65, 93, 152, 153 Edelman, M. 63 Edney,J.J. 14 Eliade, M. 23,24 Ellis, P. 27,63,66 Evans, G. W. 18,37 Evette,T. 150,154 Farbstein, J. 65 Fischer, G. N. VI, VII, 4, 52, 54, 66, 104, 120 Flyger, V. 10 Forman, A. 96 Foss, C. 21 Foucault, M. 52 Francescato, D. 36 Friedberg, E. 2,116 Friedman, G. 49,50 Friedman, Y. 151,152 Gärung, T. 37 Gaudreau, A. T. 65 Gemgross-Haas, G. 100 Goffman,E. 38,39,131 Golan, M. B. 96 Goodrich, R. 91, 92, 95-97, 140, 141 Goodsell, C. T. 63 Gottesdiener, A. 28, 30 Gouldner, A.W. 65 Grandjean, E. 95

Author Index

194 Guest, R. H. 65 Gyllenhammar, P. 65 Haber, G. M. 15 Halbwachs, M. 25 Hall, E.T. 4, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 92, 179 Hedge, A. 94, 95, 100, 101 Hediger, H. 9 Helson, H. 29 Hensley, W. E. 14 Herbert, R. K. 21 Herzberg, F. 2 Higgin, G.W. 65 Holahan, C. J. 12, 17 Homans, G. C. 4, 141 Horowitz, M. J. 16, 17 Howard, R. 18 Illich, I. 177 Ittelson, W. H. 12,30,31,37,38 Jaques, E. 149 Jenks, S. 47, 140 Jodelet, D. 36 Josefowitz, N. 96 Justa, F. C. 96 Jutras, S. 145

Lynch, K. 34-36 Mallick,R. W. 65 Malmberg, T. 12 Mandel, D. R. 93,94 Manning, P. 65 Marans, R. W. 100, 128 March, J. G. 2 Martindale, D. A. 14 Maslow, A. 2,55 Mayo,E. 2,57 McGee, C. 96 McGregor, D. 2 Mebane,W. 36 Mehrabian, A. 31,50 Michelson,W. 141 Milgram, S. 36 Miller, E. K. 64 Milley,J. 25 Mintzberg, H. 2 Moles, A. 16,44,71 Moleski, W. H. 63, 64, 89, 91, 140 Montmollin, M. de 2 Moos, R. H. 173 Morgan, G. 55 Munsterberg, H. 2 Murray, H. 65

Kamp, D. 94-96 Keating,!. 22 Kenny, C. 5 Konar, E. 93,94 Kotier, J. P. 142

Neisser.W. 27,28 Nemecek, J. 95 O'Brien, G. E. 22 Osgood, C. E. 101

Lang,J.T. 63,64,89,91,140 Lauterman, E. D. 145, 146 Lee,T. 37 Levi-Strauss, C. 24, 25 Levy-Leboyer, C. 100 Leguay, J. P. 25 Leibson, D. E. 142 Lewin, K. 3,7,59,116,149 Lindberg, E. 37 Linhart, R. 2 Lippitt, R. 149 Lorenz, K. 10 Lyman, S. 13

Pailhous, J. 36 Parsons, H. M. 142 Pastalan, L. 10, 22 Paznik,M. J. 129 Pederson, J. 18 Pembroke, M. 22 Peponis, J. 64 Pezdek,K. 37 Pfeffer,!. 26 Piaget, J. 29 Pineau, C. 28 Pollock, A.B. 65 Pratt, G. 28

Author Index Proshansky, H. M. 12, 38 Rees,K. 99, 180 Rice, R. W. 93,94 Rivlin,L. G. 12,38 Roethlisberger, R. J. 65 Rohmer, E. 16,71 Rüssel, J. A. 27,28,31 Sainsaulieu, R. 2 Scheflen, A. 66 Schmidt, D. 22 Scott, M. 13 Seiler.J. A. 61,62,140,155 Simon, H. A. 2 Smith, W. 20 Soja, E. 12 Sommer, R. 15-19, 38, 39, 90, 147 Sperandio, J. C. 2 Spreckelmeyer, K. F. 100, 128 Stalker, G. M. 65 Stea, D. 10,12,33,34 Steele, F. I. 47, 93, 94, 140, 145-147 Sterling, E. 54 Sterling, T. D. 54 Stokols,D. 27,32,99,100 Stratton, L. O. 16,17 Suci,G. J. 101

195 Sundstrom, E. 4, 13, 21, 23, 47, 55, 57, 58, 89, 91-96, 100, 118, 121, 140-142 Sundstrom, M. G. 4, 13, 47, 55, 57, 58, 89,91-94, 100, 118, 121, 140-142 Szigeti, F. 31 Tannebaum, P. H. 101 Taylor, D. A. 22 Tinbergen, N. 9 Tolman, E. C. 32 Town, J. P. 96 Triandis, H. C. 99 Trist, E. L. 2, 65 Uexküll, J. von 9 Vinsel, A. 21 Walker, C. R. 65 Ward, L. M. 27,28 Weber, M. 3 Westin, A. 20,22,94 Wheeler, L. 22 Wineman, J. D. 94, 95, 140, 141 Wohlwill, J. 22 Wynne, B. 151 Zeigarnik, B. 50

de Gruyter Studies in Organization Recent publications Vol. 77 Robert Chia

Organizational Analysis as Deconstructive Practice 1996. 23 X 15.5cm. XIV, 245 pages With 10 figures Cloth. ISBN 3-11-014559-6

Vol. 76 Christian Lahusen

The Rhetoric of Moral Protest Public Campaigns, Celebrity Endorsement and Political Mobilization 1996. 23 X 15.5cm. XVI, 425 pages With 24 figures, 1 table, and numerous music scores Cloth. ISBN 3-11-015093-X Vol. 75 Michio Muramatsu/Frieder Naschold (Editors)

State and Administration in Japan and Germany A Comparative Perspective on Continuity and Change 1996. 23 X 15.5cm. XIV, 349 pages With 23 figures and numerous tables Cloth. ISBN 3-11-014462-X

Vol. 74 Adrienne Heritier/Christoph Knill/Susanne Mingers

Ringing the Changes in Europe Regulatory Competition and the Transformation of the State. Britain, France, Germany In collaboration with Rhodes Barrett 1996. 23 X 15.5cm. XIV, 363 pages Cloth. ISBN 3-11-014765-3

WALTER DE GRUYTER · BERLIN · NEW YORK Genthiner Strasse 13, D-10785 Berlin, Tel. (030)26005-161, Fax: (030)26005-222 200 Saw Mill Rivder Road, Hawthorne, N. Y. 10532, Tel. (914)747-0110, Fax (914)747-1326